In the previous articles, pre-Augustine fathers were dealt with to show that they to the man held to John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth requirement (Ambrose and Origen applied John 3:5 to infant baptism, contrary to Wilson also claiming Augustine reinterpreted John 3:5 for infant baptism tradition), not physical birth, to refute Ken Wilson’s claim that later Augustine changed and re-interpreted John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism.
Also discussed is the various statements by infant baptism affirming fathers prior to Augustine showing that, contrary to what Wilson claimed, they did indeed affirmed baptism confers regeneration and forgiveness of sins to the infants (Cyprian even said infants are forgiven not for own sins but sins of another, Adam).
(It puts the lie to this claim Wilson made on page 304 that it was unknown why infant baptism was practiced even by early Augustine and fathers prior to him: “Some churches practiced for unknown reasons as early as 200 CE. Augustine denied water baptism as required for salvation as late as 400 CE, and did not know why church tradition baptized infants.”)
The previous two articles can be found here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/06/lead-augustine-scholar-ken-wilson-using.html?m=0
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/07/lead-augustine-scholar-using-and.html?m=0
Augustine didn’t introduce these “novel” concepts since they were held to for centuries prior to him, especially John 3:5 baptismal reading, and especially not out of Manichaeanism, Gnosticism, etc. In fact, as pointed out, per what Hippolytus wrote in Refutation of All Heresies, it was the Docetist Gnostics who rejected baptismal view of John 3:5 and took the physical birth interpretation. So when Wilson played the Gnostic and novelty card on Augustine in regards, it’s not only disingenuous, since his own view of physical birth for John 3:5 was novel, except from Gnostics, but also not intellectually honest at all. Claiming Augustine gave novel interpretation of John 3:5 to make baptism into requirement to be saved is literally fake history news given to the man church fathers, who commented on that passage, held to that view prior to Augustine.
Now, the focus now will be Wilson’s use and abuse of early Augustine to pit him against later Augustine on baptism. This will be dealt with in multiple articles. The first part here will deal with Wilson’s claims pitting early Augustine against later Augustine specifically on infant baptism.
On page 282 of his book Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will”, Wilson wrote,
“Prior to 412 CE, even Augustine had viewed as unnecessary for salvation and paedobaptism had no explanation.”
While the first part of this statement, that claimed early Augustine denied baptismal saving necessity, will be dealt with in more detail in the next article, the explanations documented here from early Augustine on infant baptism will also help to show why such a statement is false.
In Wilson’s shorter book The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism (for more public consumption) page 56, he wrote, “About 405 CE, Augustine admitted that he did not know why infant baptism was practiced.” The Augustine source he used was Magnitude on the Soul, which according to his longer book we otherwise refer to here was accurately written in 387 AD, not 405 AD. So Wilson wanted to paint Augustine as not knowing why infant baptism was practiced almost two decades after his conversion to the general public, when he was referring to what Augustine said a year after his conversion to the Christian faith. And even that quote hardly said what Wilson wanted to claim it said.
What Augustine said was, “In this context, also how much benefit is there in the consecration of infant children? It is a most difficult (obscure) question. However, that some benefit exists is to be believed. Reason will discover this when it should be asked.”
Note, the bishop of Hippo did not even use the word baptism. If Wilson was claiming Augustine meant infant baptism when he said consecration of infant children, he refuted his own claim that Augustine had no explanation for why infants were baptized since the explanation would be to consecrate (or save) them.
By Wilson’s own admission, Augustine’s Psalm 51.10 exposition was pre-412. Wilson wrote on page 264 in regards to Psalm 51:5, “This verse appears prior to 411 CE in its traditional usage (e.g., Conf. 1.7 and Enar. 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.
Here is what Augustine wrote in it in regards to infant baptism (as saving and forgiving remedy to infants for original sin):
“10. For, behold, in iniquities I was conceived Psalm 50:5. As though he were saying, They are conquered that have done what thou, David, hast done: for this is not a little evil and little sin, to wit, adultery and man-slaying. What of them that from the day that they were born of their mother's womb, have done no such thing? Even to them do you ascribe some sins, in order that He may conquer all men when He begins to be judged. David has taken upon him the person of mankind, and has heeded the bonds of all men, has considered the offspring of death, has adverted to the origin of iniquity, and he says, For, behold, in iniquities I was conceived. Was David born of adultery; being born of Jesse, 1 Samuel 16:18 a righteous man, and his own wife? 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.”
Several things can be noted here: prior to 412 AD, Augustine did not hold to infants were innocent and did not denied they need baptism for forgiveness of sins and regeneration. Also, he did not have no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD contrary to what Wilson claimed. And it’s proof he affirmed baptism is necessary to salvation, even for infants, based on his view of we are born guilty of sin from Adam (contrary to Wilson claiming Augustine saw the text as hyperbole back then) prior to 412 AD. Finally, he saw Psalm 51:5 as supporting infant baptism contrary to Wilson claiming later Augustine after this writing transforming this text into supporting infant baptism. Clear and example of Wilson misusing, misquoting and distorting sources from early Augustine (and pre-Augustine fathers) to push his claim that the idea of infant baptismal salvation from original sin came from Augustine out of Manichaeanism, Gnosticism, etc.
Contrast with what Augustine actually said here prior to 412 AD to what Wilson claimed on page 128: “Only when Augustine converts to inherited reatus remitted by baptism (412 CE) does he demand paedobaptism for salvation.”
He referred to this source as pre-411 AD and attempted to claim it as on his side prior to 412, so he would know Augustine offered an explanation for infant baptism yet claimed he had no explanation for infant baptism. In the previous article, it was pointed out by Ambrose’s own words on infant baptismal salvation that he held to it (and saw John 3:5 as prooftext for that putting the lie to the claim Augustine invented such views and went against his mentor on them). To use Wilson’s own argument, Augustine sat under Ambrose’s tutelage for years and so would not be ignorant of his teachings. So the idea Augustine at any point in his Christian life had no explanation for infant baptism is laughable. It’s massively false.
And Wilson knew it was false that even Augustine (and by extension prior fathers) had no explanation prior to 412 AD for infant baptism. On page 119, he wrote in regards to 401 AD Augustine’s anti-Donatist work, Answer to Petilian the Donatist, “He argues that no person ever comes to baptism free of sin (except Christ), quoting Job 14:4-5 LXX and Ps. 51.5 to prove even infants come to seek remission of their own (not Adam’s) sins (C. litt. Petil. 2.232).”
The quote from Augustine in that writing referred to is here: “I should like to come to argument with those who shouted assent when they either heard or read those words of yours. For such men have not ears in their hearts, but their heart in their ears. Yet let them read again and again, and consider, and find out for themselves, not what the sound of those words is, but what they mean. First of all, to sift the meaning of the last clause, ‘So it comes to pass,’ you say, "that you who had come to baptism free from sin, return from baptism guilty of the sin of murder:" tell me, to begin with, who there is that comes to baptism free from sin, with the single exception of Him who came to be baptized, not that His iniquity should be purged away, but that an example of humility might be given us? For what shall be forgiven to one free from sin? Or are you indeed endowed with such an eloquence, that you can show to us some innocence which yet commits sin? Do you not hear the words of Scripture saying, ‘No one is clean from sin in Your sight, not even the infant whose life is but of a single day upon the earth?’ For whence else is it that one hastens even with infants to seek remission of their sins? Do you not hear the words of another Scripture, ‘In sin did my mother conceive me?’ ”
Remember, Wilson said on page 264 that later Augustine transformed Psalm 51:5 into support for infant baptism. By his own admission here, that’s totally untrue. Early Augustine held to Psalm 51:5 in support of infant baptism. Even if Wilson wanted to make the claim that Augustine only held to baptism forgives personal sins of infants, not sins of Adam, that doesn’t change the fact that the view of infants being saved from their sins was held well before 412 AD by early Augustine (and prior fathers). Wilson refuted his own propaganda here that Augustine invented infant baptismal salvation prior to one can grow up to make free choice, out of Manichaeanism, Gnosticism etc. And it sure disproved his claim prior to 412 AD, Augustine had no explanation for infant baptism.
On page 121, in regards to Augustine’s 405 AD On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Wilson wrote, “Baptism only avails for infants’ dedication to God and a first step toward salvation, not the forgiveness of guilt from original sin (Bapt. 4.32).”
Besides the fact that this is a hatchet job on what the church father taught on infant baptism even early on to claim he saw it as some form of baby dedication as many churches practiced today without the water, even if we go by what Wilson said, that still is further proof that prior to 412 AD, Augustine had explanations for infant baptism, and Wilson was willfully giving false information when he claimed Augustine had no explanation for it prior to 412 AD to push his point that Augustinian original sin and infant baptismal salvation as remedy originated from Augustine in 412 AD and onwards out of the church father supposedly reverting to his old pagan beliefs.
On Baptism will be dealt with in more detail the next article, since it highlighted how badly Wilson distorted early Augustine when he claimed he then denied baptismal saving necessity and John 3:5 as prooftext of that (he claimed later Augustine changed John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism). But the infant baptism aspect will be dealt with here.
Augustine in On Baptism 4:32 saw baptism first as parallel with circumcision in terms of even infants counted for righteousness when given the sacrament:
“Why, therefore, was it commanded him that he should circumcise every male child in order on the eighth day, Genesis 17:9-14 though it could not yet believe with the heart, that it should be counted unto it for righteousness, because the sacrament in itself was of great avail?”
He then cited the example of Moses’ son facing death if not circumcised (as analogy in regards to infants needing baptism):
“And this was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of Moses' son; for when he was carried by his mother, being yet uncircumcised, it was required, by manifest present peril, that he should be circumcised, Exodus 4:24-26 and when this was done, the danger of death was removed.”
He added then that infants were given via “the sacrament of regeneration” the seal of the righteousness of faith:
“And as in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body.”
So when Augustine used the term dedication in regards to baptism it was in regards to infants being saved by baptism, that covers them should they die (Augustine offered no such hope for the unbaptized infants even here), not by own faith but faith of own parents:
“so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves.”
While this is not agreeable to Lutheran theology (which affirms infants were given faith to receive baptismal forgiveness, salvation and regeneration), the point is that Augustine did not just come up with baptismal salvation by proxy when he was battling the Pelagians from 412 AD, as Wilson claimed he did. This view existed in early Augustine.
Regardless, even if Wilson was right on Augustine’s explanation for infant baptism here, he refuted himself when he claimed elsewhere that Augustine had no idea why infant baptism was practiced prior to 412 AD.
To close, let’s see what Wilson said Augustine in 412 AD, when that marked the beginning of the later Augustine period when he battled the Pelagians. Wilson wrote on page 158: “But even Augustine does not explicitly claim apostolic authority for paedobaptism (Pecc. merit.1.39).”
Now, let’s see what Augustine wrote in that same source that Wilson referred to, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book 1:
“Now, seeing that they admit the necessity of baptizing infants — finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles.”
See the pattern here?
And the Leighton Flowers crowd wants to push his material and claim he is lead Augustine scholar who cannot be questioned so to shut down debate, even as they throw pagan, Gnostic and Manichaean charges at Augustine and by extension those who are his spiritual heirs based on this type of “scholarship”?
Here we stand.
7/25/20
7/23/20
“Lead Augustine scholar” Ken Wilson using and abusing the pre-Augustine fathers on infant baptism
In the previous article, it is documented how Ken Wilson used and abused the pre-Augustine fathers so that he can push the false history narrative that Augustine changed and gave novel view from John 3:5 from physical birth to water baptism. To the man, each and every father, who commented on John 3:5 prior to Augustine, saw it as baptismal.
You can read it here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/06/lead-augustine-scholar-ken-wilson-using.html?m=1
Here, the focus will be more towards infant baptism. On page 75 of his Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to ‘Non-free Free Will’ book (which is his dissertation in published form), he wrote,
“No second-century author had discussed paedobaptism (the Epistle of Barnabas specifically rejected a baptism/circumcision association) until Tertullian opposed it (ca. 200).”
With all due respects, that is debatable.
If Wilson wants to use as talking point baptism was not seen as circumcision by Barnabas as evidence of no mention of infant baptism in the second century, then one can point out Justin Martyr in that century in his Dialogue with Trypho chapter 18 taught baptismal regeneration is the new circumcision:
“Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision.”
Besides the fact Barnabas held to being baptized is for forgiveness of sins and regeneration, which go against Wilson’s own novelties of seeing baptism as not saving, one can also cite Irenaeus in multiple writings.
In Fragment 34, the bishop of Lyons wrote,
“It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
On top of the fact that Irenaeus quoted John 3:5 as baptismal, putting the lie to the claim Augustine changed John 3:5 from physical birth to baptismal out of Gnosticism (ironic since physical birth view of that passage is the Docetist Gnostic interpretation), he said of being spiritually regenerated as “new-born babes” while also as “lepers in sin.” Even if folks want to dance around that and say “new-born babes” really mean adults who are newly born spiritually, Irenaeus also wrote in Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 22:
“For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.”
The bishop stated infants as well as children, boys, youths and old men, were born again to God. So that puts the lie to the notion that Augustine invented infant rebirth before one was old enough to make “free choice.” Even if folks want to argue Irenaeus did not make mention infants were baptized here, they cannot get around this fact that he held to infants were given regeneration.
And in his view, baptism itself is regeneration. He wrote in the same work (book I, chapter 21):
“And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.”
A note needs to made on Tertullian’s one time opposition to infant baptism earlier in life. Contrary to Wilson claiming that his opposition from his view that a person must be old enough to make free choice on page 61 (“because humans can and should respond using God’s innate imago Dei free choice, Tertullian disapproved of an innocent infant being baptized without responding personally to God’s gift of grace”) that’s not the reason. Tertullian in the same 197 AD work in question held to baptismal salvation, regeneration and forgiveness of sins (citing John 3:5 among others as prooftext) and condemned the Cainites in the very first chapter for denying that. Even in his then opposition to infant baptism, he stated that infants would be forgiven of their sins in baptism. His issue with infant baptism had as premise not denial of baptism forgives sins of infants and rebirths them but affirmation of that. His concern was fall into mortal sins that can and do take place after baptism without recourse (since he did not have any view of re-baptisms for those baptized as infants). His suggestion of delay in regards to baptism was not limited to just infants
Tertullian was not on Wilson’s side theologically. He wrote in Against Baptism chapter 18;
“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. 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? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. 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.”
Let’s note that Tertullian in a later writing held to baptismal regeneration is required from birth because of original sin. In A Treatise on the Soul chapter 40, he wrote, “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.” And in chapter 41, “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.”
All these statements followed his discussion in chapter 39 how children of believers are sanctified from birth via baptism:
“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.”
Also on page 75 of his book, Wilson wrote, “Paedobaptism can be attested from Hippolytus, but its purpose remains opaque.”
Opaque? Seriously? Here’s what Hippolytus wrote on why baptism was given to both infants and their parents in Apostolic Tradition chapter 21:
“The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, saying, ‘Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit.”
Hardly opaque. But the claim fits Wilson’s narrative (which he used when it suits him and ignored when it doesn’t) that infant baptism was practiced for unknown reasons until later Augustine.
Three key examples among church fathers highlight my point about how Ken Wilson totally used and abused the pre-Augustine fathers to push his claim that Augustine invented the view of baptism is required to be saved particularly for infants: Origen, Cyprian and Ambrose.
Further in the same paragraph, to illustrate my point, Wilson wrote, “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.”
In contrast, Origen stated in Homily on Leviticus 8.3, “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 my sins my mother brought me forth,’ showing every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth ‘of iniquity of sin’; and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, ‘No one is pure from uncleanness even if his life is only one day long.’ To these things can be added the reason why it is required, since the baptism is given for the forgiveness of sins, that, according, to the observance of the Church, that baptism also be given to infants; since, certainly, if there were nothing in infants that ought to pertain to forgiveness and indulgence, then the grace of baptism would appear superflous.”
Contrast this with what Wilson claimed on Origen on page 72: “Therefore, originally paeobaptism was the corollary of a Jewish ceremonial cleansing of a birth stain (probably from ‘unclean’ blood), not a baptism for sin, especially not any original sin with guilt.”
Not just this writing by Origen put the lie to the notion infant baptismal rebirth, salvation and forgiveness of sins originated from Augustine, but also his Romans commentary 5.9:
“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.”
That puts the lie also not only to the claim that Augustine changed reading from John 3:5 from physical birth to water baptism but also that he first saw that as infant baptismal prootext. Contrast these statements also with Wilson saying on page 75 that Origen saw infant baptism as “limited sacrament for which no accepted theological explanation existed.” Well, he offered standard theological explanations in the above quotes. Saying as he did on page 71, that “the fact that even the sinless Jesus required purification upon physical birth proves Origen was not thinking of a guilt of original sin,” does not change anything documented from Origen where he did indeed say infants need baptism for the forgiveness of sins and washing of water and the Spirit per John 3:5, Psalm 51:5 (Wilson claimed in his shorter book falsely that Origen saw Psalm 51:5 in both sources referred to here as hyperbole, not infants literally born sinful). That is especially when no one who affirmed original sin and infant baptismal salvation hold to Christ was born sinful.
In dealing with Cyprian’s epistle 58 (or 64), he claimed on page 79 that the bishop of Carthage did “not mention Adam’s sin, inherited sin, or guilt- only a rebirth according to the fleshly contagion.”
Here’s what Cyprian wrote, “But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.”
Note the last part where he said that at baptism the infant receives forgiveness of sins that isn’t his own sins but “sins of another.” Wilson made a blatantly false assertion to claim no mention of Adam’s sin so that he can claim such a view of bearing Adam’s sin guilt that needs baptismal forgiveness originated from the “Manichaean Gnostic” views of later Augustine.
And he knew this claim to be false since on page 158, he wrote that later Augustine “concludes (per Cyprian) that infants must be baptized for someone else’s sin.”
And Wilson used his key omission to push this point: “Cyprian pronounces the newborn given directly from God purely at birth. The hereditary contagion seems much less serious than personal sin (the infant approaches much more easily). Nevertheless, a newborn contracts something by birth related to the ‘ancient death.’ This matches Origen’s contemporaneous assessment of paedobaptism as removing the stain of entering a physical body, without sin or damnable guilt (e.g., even the newborn Jesus still required a sacrifice).”
Besides the fact that Origen did state multiple times that infants are guilty of sin that requires being forgiven in the very writings Wilson claimed he held to baptism only removes stains from infant bodies, it also be noted that Cyprian not only held to infants needed baptism to have the sins of Adam (another) forgiven, but also that none of them be lost hence why he argued to baptize as soon as possible after birth rather than wait until the eighth day:
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them, Luke 4:56 as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost.”
Note Cyprian said to baptize infants as soon as possible after birth so that “no soul be lost.” It is therefore ironic and rich that Wilson accused Augustine (falsely) on page 230 of misrepresenting Cyprian here “since no mention can be found of a soul’s damnation in Cyprian’s epistle.” Another key omission by Wilson from what Cyprian so he can trash Augustine.
Wilson did mention that Cyprian gave as one of his reasons for infant baptism: “if the greatest sinners can be forgiven then infants should easily be forgiven.”
While omitting Adam’s sin from what Cyprian said is clearly wrong, this statement in itself refutes a lot of his diatribe against Augustine. According to Wilson, infant baptismal regeneration, salvation and forgiveness originated from Augustine’s “pagan” and “novel” beliefs.
Even if the reasons were as stated by Wilson as to why infant baptism was practiced by pre-Augustine fathers, that put the lie to his claim on page 282 that not even Augustine prior to 412 knew why infant baptism was practiced (in his interview with Leighton Flowers, he actually claimed up til then, infant baptism was practiced for unknown reasons).
On page 175, Wilson wrote,
“When Augustine accuses Vincentius of believing in original sin while denying the necessity of regeneration through water baptism for infants, he simultaneously accuses Ambrose who taught the same thing.”
Really? Let’s see what Augustine’s mentor and bishop of Milan wrote in On Abraham, 2.84: “Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Surely, He exempts none, not the infant, not one hindered by any necessity: but although they may have a hidden immunity to punishments, I know not whether they have the honour of the Kingdom.”
This quote besides refuting Wilson’s claim that Ambrose denied baptism is necessary to salvation for infants also refutes his assertion on the previous page that Augustine’s view of John 3:5 as teaching baptism is required for salvation was novel and allegorized:
“Augustine replies with his allegorized John 3:5, declaring water baptism as essential for salvation, even in sinless newborns.” And: “When Vincentius points to the thief entering paradise without baptism, Augustine repeats his novel John 3:5 proof text.”
Ambrose made his statement of even infants needing baptismal rebirth after spending several pages building his case for that. In On Abraham 2.79, he stated, “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.
Besides seeing John 3:5 as prooftext for baptismal saving necessity, even for infants (contrary to Wilson claiming that originated with Augustine), he argued the following page in 2.81 linking circumcision to baptism and showing infants have sin guilt that baptism needs to forgive and call them from:
“No age should be devoid of tutelage, because none is devoid of guilt. Even a baby is to be called back from sin, lest he be stained by the infection of idolatry, and lest he become accustomed to worship an idol and fondly kiss an image, to disobey his father’s will, to offend against piety. At the same time, lest anyone be haughty, in that he seems to himself to be righteous, Abraham is ordered to be circumcised. Therefore, neither an old proselyte nor a home-born baby, because every age is subject to sin, and therefore every age is fit to receive the Sacrament.”
In light of Wilson’s omissions and distorting of facts, it is purely ironic he wrote on page 179, “Ignorance of Ambrose’s De Mysteriis must be doubted having studied under Ambrose as his spiritual father, citing ten of his works, and teaching Ambrose’s traditional free doctrine for twenty-five years. This invites the question of intentional omission- a deliberate misrepresentation but not a lie.”
Pretty rich since Ambrose’s On the Mysteries was another one of many writings that Wilson omitted to mention that pre-Augustine fathers interpreted John 3:5 as baptismal saving requirement prooftext. The bishop of Milan wrote:
“20. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.”
Contrast that with Wilson saying on page 250: “Yet even Ambrose, Augustine’s own mentor, refused to assign unbaptized persons to hell, allowing a faith conversion to suffice (Ob. Val. 51).”
Granted Wilson was referring to another work by Ambrose but the point is he was trying to claim (later) Augustine invented the idea of baptismal salvation requirement, including of infants, and John 3:5 as prooftext of that. (It must be noted even later Augustine allowed for baptism of desire or by faith exceptions to the requirement, as will be discussed in a future article.)
What Wilson was trying to get Augustine for was this on pages 178-179:
“But Ambrose stated water baptism forgave only personal sins not hereditary sins (Myst. 32-33), which Augustine never quotes. Actually, Wilson omitted On the Mysteries 31 to push his point that Ambrose held to hereditary sins are removed by foot washing and baptism removes only personal sins.
The church father wrote:
“31. You went up from the font; remember the Gospel lesson. For our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel washed the feet of His disciples. When He came to Simon Peter, Peter said: You shall never wash my feet. John 13:8 He did not perceive the mystery, and therefore he refused the service, for he thought that the humility of the servant would be injured, if he patiently allowed the Lord to minister to him. And the Lord answered him: If I wash not your feet, you will have no part with Me. Peter, hearing this, replies: Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. The Lord answered: He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet but is clean every whit. John 13:9-10”
In other words, Christ washing the disciples feet was treated by Ambrose as a type of baptism that we now have.
Simply put, Wilson is forced to twist church father writings and facts to claim baptismal salvation, especially of infants, originated from Augustine to paint such views as Manichaean, Gnostic, and novel (completely missing the irony especially when it comes to his own novel view of say John 3:5 which is foreign to most of church history except you guess it- Gnostics).
Here we stand.
You can read it here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/06/lead-augustine-scholar-ken-wilson-using.html?m=1
Here, the focus will be more towards infant baptism. On page 75 of his Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to ‘Non-free Free Will’ book (which is his dissertation in published form), he wrote,
“No second-century author had discussed paedobaptism (the Epistle of Barnabas specifically rejected a baptism/circumcision association) until Tertullian opposed it (ca. 200).”
With all due respects, that is debatable.
If Wilson wants to use as talking point baptism was not seen as circumcision by Barnabas as evidence of no mention of infant baptism in the second century, then one can point out Justin Martyr in that century in his Dialogue with Trypho chapter 18 taught baptismal regeneration is the new circumcision:
“Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision.”
Besides the fact Barnabas held to being baptized is for forgiveness of sins and regeneration, which go against Wilson’s own novelties of seeing baptism as not saving, one can also cite Irenaeus in multiple writings.
In Fragment 34, the bishop of Lyons wrote,
“It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
On top of the fact that Irenaeus quoted John 3:5 as baptismal, putting the lie to the claim Augustine changed John 3:5 from physical birth to baptismal out of Gnosticism (ironic since physical birth view of that passage is the Docetist Gnostic interpretation), he said of being spiritually regenerated as “new-born babes” while also as “lepers in sin.” Even if folks want to dance around that and say “new-born babes” really mean adults who are newly born spiritually, Irenaeus also wrote in Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 22:
“For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.”
The bishop stated infants as well as children, boys, youths and old men, were born again to God. So that puts the lie to the notion that Augustine invented infant rebirth before one was old enough to make “free choice.” Even if folks want to argue Irenaeus did not make mention infants were baptized here, they cannot get around this fact that he held to infants were given regeneration.
And in his view, baptism itself is regeneration. He wrote in the same work (book I, chapter 21):
“And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.”
A note needs to made on Tertullian’s one time opposition to infant baptism earlier in life. Contrary to Wilson claiming that his opposition from his view that a person must be old enough to make free choice on page 61 (“because humans can and should respond using God’s innate imago Dei free choice, Tertullian disapproved of an innocent infant being baptized without responding personally to God’s gift of grace”) that’s not the reason. Tertullian in the same 197 AD work in question held to baptismal salvation, regeneration and forgiveness of sins (citing John 3:5 among others as prooftext) and condemned the Cainites in the very first chapter for denying that. Even in his then opposition to infant baptism, he stated that infants would be forgiven of their sins in baptism. His issue with infant baptism had as premise not denial of baptism forgives sins of infants and rebirths them but affirmation of that. His concern was fall into mortal sins that can and do take place after baptism without recourse (since he did not have any view of re-baptisms for those baptized as infants). His suggestion of delay in regards to baptism was not limited to just infants
Tertullian was not on Wilson’s side theologically. He wrote in Against Baptism chapter 18;
“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. 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? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. 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.”
Let’s note that Tertullian in a later writing held to baptismal regeneration is required from birth because of original sin. In A Treatise on the Soul chapter 40, he wrote, “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.” And in chapter 41, “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.”
All these statements followed his discussion in chapter 39 how children of believers are sanctified from birth via baptism:
“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.”
Also on page 75 of his book, Wilson wrote, “Paedobaptism can be attested from Hippolytus, but its purpose remains opaque.”
Opaque? Seriously? Here’s what Hippolytus wrote on why baptism was given to both infants and their parents in Apostolic Tradition chapter 21:
“The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, saying, ‘Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit.”
Hardly opaque. But the claim fits Wilson’s narrative (which he used when it suits him and ignored when it doesn’t) that infant baptism was practiced for unknown reasons until later Augustine.
Three key examples among church fathers highlight my point about how Ken Wilson totally used and abused the pre-Augustine fathers to push his claim that Augustine invented the view of baptism is required to be saved particularly for infants: Origen, Cyprian and Ambrose.
Further in the same paragraph, to illustrate my point, Wilson wrote, “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.”
In contrast, Origen stated in Homily on Leviticus 8.3, “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 my sins my mother brought me forth,’ showing every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth ‘of iniquity of sin’; and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, ‘No one is pure from uncleanness even if his life is only one day long.’ To these things can be added the reason why it is required, since the baptism is given for the forgiveness of sins, that, according, to the observance of the Church, that baptism also be given to infants; since, certainly, if there were nothing in infants that ought to pertain to forgiveness and indulgence, then the grace of baptism would appear superflous.”
Contrast this with what Wilson claimed on Origen on page 72: “Therefore, originally paeobaptism was the corollary of a Jewish ceremonial cleansing of a birth stain (probably from ‘unclean’ blood), not a baptism for sin, especially not any original sin with guilt.”
Not just this writing by Origen put the lie to the notion infant baptismal rebirth, salvation and forgiveness of sins originated from Augustine, but also his Romans commentary 5.9:
“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.”
That puts the lie also not only to the claim that Augustine changed reading from John 3:5 from physical birth to water baptism but also that he first saw that as infant baptismal prootext. Contrast these statements also with Wilson saying on page 75 that Origen saw infant baptism as “limited sacrament for which no accepted theological explanation existed.” Well, he offered standard theological explanations in the above quotes. Saying as he did on page 71, that “the fact that even the sinless Jesus required purification upon physical birth proves Origen was not thinking of a guilt of original sin,” does not change anything documented from Origen where he did indeed say infants need baptism for the forgiveness of sins and washing of water and the Spirit per John 3:5, Psalm 51:5 (Wilson claimed in his shorter book falsely that Origen saw Psalm 51:5 in both sources referred to here as hyperbole, not infants literally born sinful). That is especially when no one who affirmed original sin and infant baptismal salvation hold to Christ was born sinful.
In dealing with Cyprian’s epistle 58 (or 64), he claimed on page 79 that the bishop of Carthage did “not mention Adam’s sin, inherited sin, or guilt- only a rebirth according to the fleshly contagion.”
Here’s what Cyprian wrote, “But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.”
Note the last part where he said that at baptism the infant receives forgiveness of sins that isn’t his own sins but “sins of another.” Wilson made a blatantly false assertion to claim no mention of Adam’s sin so that he can claim such a view of bearing Adam’s sin guilt that needs baptismal forgiveness originated from the “Manichaean Gnostic” views of later Augustine.
And he knew this claim to be false since on page 158, he wrote that later Augustine “concludes (per Cyprian) that infants must be baptized for someone else’s sin.”
And Wilson used his key omission to push this point: “Cyprian pronounces the newborn given directly from God purely at birth. The hereditary contagion seems much less serious than personal sin (the infant approaches much more easily). Nevertheless, a newborn contracts something by birth related to the ‘ancient death.’ This matches Origen’s contemporaneous assessment of paedobaptism as removing the stain of entering a physical body, without sin or damnable guilt (e.g., even the newborn Jesus still required a sacrifice).”
Besides the fact that Origen did state multiple times that infants are guilty of sin that requires being forgiven in the very writings Wilson claimed he held to baptism only removes stains from infant bodies, it also be noted that Cyprian not only held to infants needed baptism to have the sins of Adam (another) forgiven, but also that none of them be lost hence why he argued to baptize as soon as possible after birth rather than wait until the eighth day:
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them, Luke 4:56 as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost.”
Note Cyprian said to baptize infants as soon as possible after birth so that “no soul be lost.” It is therefore ironic and rich that Wilson accused Augustine (falsely) on page 230 of misrepresenting Cyprian here “since no mention can be found of a soul’s damnation in Cyprian’s epistle.” Another key omission by Wilson from what Cyprian so he can trash Augustine.
Wilson did mention that Cyprian gave as one of his reasons for infant baptism: “if the greatest sinners can be forgiven then infants should easily be forgiven.”
While omitting Adam’s sin from what Cyprian said is clearly wrong, this statement in itself refutes a lot of his diatribe against Augustine. According to Wilson, infant baptismal regeneration, salvation and forgiveness originated from Augustine’s “pagan” and “novel” beliefs.
Even if the reasons were as stated by Wilson as to why infant baptism was practiced by pre-Augustine fathers, that put the lie to his claim on page 282 that not even Augustine prior to 412 knew why infant baptism was practiced (in his interview with Leighton Flowers, he actually claimed up til then, infant baptism was practiced for unknown reasons).
On page 175, Wilson wrote,
“When Augustine accuses Vincentius of believing in original sin while denying the necessity of regeneration through water baptism for infants, he simultaneously accuses Ambrose who taught the same thing.”
Really? Let’s see what Augustine’s mentor and bishop of Milan wrote in On Abraham, 2.84: “Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Surely, He exempts none, not the infant, not one hindered by any necessity: but although they may have a hidden immunity to punishments, I know not whether they have the honour of the Kingdom.”
This quote besides refuting Wilson’s claim that Ambrose denied baptism is necessary to salvation for infants also refutes his assertion on the previous page that Augustine’s view of John 3:5 as teaching baptism is required for salvation was novel and allegorized:
“Augustine replies with his allegorized John 3:5, declaring water baptism as essential for salvation, even in sinless newborns.” And: “When Vincentius points to the thief entering paradise without baptism, Augustine repeats his novel John 3:5 proof text.”
Ambrose made his statement of even infants needing baptismal rebirth after spending several pages building his case for that. In On Abraham 2.79, he stated, “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.
Besides seeing John 3:5 as prooftext for baptismal saving necessity, even for infants (contrary to Wilson claiming that originated with Augustine), he argued the following page in 2.81 linking circumcision to baptism and showing infants have sin guilt that baptism needs to forgive and call them from:
“No age should be devoid of tutelage, because none is devoid of guilt. Even a baby is to be called back from sin, lest he be stained by the infection of idolatry, and lest he become accustomed to worship an idol and fondly kiss an image, to disobey his father’s will, to offend against piety. At the same time, lest anyone be haughty, in that he seems to himself to be righteous, Abraham is ordered to be circumcised. Therefore, neither an old proselyte nor a home-born baby, because every age is subject to sin, and therefore every age is fit to receive the Sacrament.”
In light of Wilson’s omissions and distorting of facts, it is purely ironic he wrote on page 179, “Ignorance of Ambrose’s De Mysteriis must be doubted having studied under Ambrose as his spiritual father, citing ten of his works, and teaching Ambrose’s traditional free doctrine for twenty-five years. This invites the question of intentional omission- a deliberate misrepresentation but not a lie.”
Pretty rich since Ambrose’s On the Mysteries was another one of many writings that Wilson omitted to mention that pre-Augustine fathers interpreted John 3:5 as baptismal saving requirement prooftext. The bishop of Milan wrote:
“20. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.”
Contrast that with Wilson saying on page 250: “Yet even Ambrose, Augustine’s own mentor, refused to assign unbaptized persons to hell, allowing a faith conversion to suffice (Ob. Val. 51).”
Granted Wilson was referring to another work by Ambrose but the point is he was trying to claim (later) Augustine invented the idea of baptismal salvation requirement, including of infants, and John 3:5 as prooftext of that. (It must be noted even later Augustine allowed for baptism of desire or by faith exceptions to the requirement, as will be discussed in a future article.)
What Wilson was trying to get Augustine for was this on pages 178-179:
“But Ambrose stated water baptism forgave only personal sins not hereditary sins (Myst. 32-33), which Augustine never quotes. Actually, Wilson omitted On the Mysteries 31 to push his point that Ambrose held to hereditary sins are removed by foot washing and baptism removes only personal sins.
The church father wrote:
“31. You went up from the font; remember the Gospel lesson. For our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel washed the feet of His disciples. When He came to Simon Peter, Peter said: You shall never wash my feet. John 13:8 He did not perceive the mystery, and therefore he refused the service, for he thought that the humility of the servant would be injured, if he patiently allowed the Lord to minister to him. And the Lord answered him: If I wash not your feet, you will have no part with Me. Peter, hearing this, replies: Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. The Lord answered: He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet but is clean every whit. John 13:9-10”
In other words, Christ washing the disciples feet was treated by Ambrose as a type of baptism that we now have.
Simply put, Wilson is forced to twist church father writings and facts to claim baptismal salvation, especially of infants, originated from Augustine to paint such views as Manichaean, Gnostic, and novel (completely missing the irony especially when it comes to his own novel view of say John 3:5 which is foreign to most of church history except you guess it- Gnostics).
Here we stand.
7/14/20
Winter Came...and Everything Changed! My Journey to Lutheranism
Greetings in the Name of our Father, His Gracious Son Jesus
Christ and the Holy Spirit.
You may not know me but I am extremely familiar with From
Geneva to Wittenberg Blog. You see,
three (3) years ago my husband and I were Providentially brought to a Lutheran
Church and subsequently the Lutheran understanding, which is the true
understanding of the Christian faith.
Last week I was asked to join this wonderful team and write
for it. To say I was surprised is an
understatement. Humbled,
definitely. Excited?! ABSOLUTELY.
You see From Geneva to Wittenberg was my journey as well. Okay, so I went from Azusa Street to Geneva
then Heidelberg to Wittenberg. Yes, a
long journey to end up with the best theology, the clearest Gospel message and
the most wonderful understanding of our Savior Jesus Christ (uhm, that the
Bible’s story and found most clearly in the Lutheran Confessions). This site helped me wrestle with my own
questions and doubts, fears and spiritual insecurities or lack of true
assurance as it probably would be expressed.
My journey may not be the same as yours, but if you’re here I have a
suspicion it’s because you too are asking questions. So, I thought, “Why not begin my entries on
this blog with my own story?” (You can get the whole story in my book “The
Accidental Lutheran: The Journey from Heidelberg to Wittenberg”.) So, here we go:
Winter came…and everything changed
There is a popular show on HBO in which the phrase “Winter is coming…” is used in almost every episode. For my husband, Bobby, and I we changed it a bit because the Winter of 2016/17 came and with it everything we knew and believed changed.
In July 2013 I completed my doctorate degree in Philosophy and Theology with a healthy dose of Apologetics mixed in. The topic of my dissertation was the proverbial “Problem of Evil”. Not to be witty, but after I completed this that’s when all my theological problems began. Well, they weren’t so much problems as they were questions. See, peering into the “secret things which belong to God” caused me a lot of inward wrestling. I understood that God is Sovereign and just but now I believe I pressed the teachings of the Dutch Reformed view regarding the elective purposes of God just a bit too far. The struggle began in my own heart first and then in discussions with Bobby, we both began to wonder about what we had and were still learning within the Dutch Reformed Christian world (hereafter referred to as Reformed).
Winter came…and EVERYTHING Changed
It began on Thanksgiving evening in 2016 and did not end until the end of April 2017. Snow…snow…and more snow. Bobby and I had moved here to Idaho in 2014 and our dear friends would tell us, when we asked about the winters here, “Oh, no problem. We might get 2 or even 4 inches but by noon it is all melted away.” Ha! While Winter 2015 did go that way, the winter of 2016 was not going to let up…at all it seemed. Every weekend there were snow storms. Not 2 or 4 inches but 10, 16 and 20 inches at a clip. Over and over we were blocked in. It was different here than living in the big city. Back in New York City the plows would be out the moment an inch or two fell. Not here in small town USA. The one neighbor in our cul de sac who had a mini plow had moved back east so we were literally stuck.
Up to this point we had been attending the reformed church in Boise, some 50 miles away. We loved this little church. It was growing and they loved to talk about God’s Word and theology even outside of service. The church we had come from back east highly recommended it to us. However, getting there in the winter months was proving near impossible. On top of snow we would have quick thaws and then blistery temperatures would leave sheets of ice all along the route out of our development. We tried to stay in contact with our new friends the the reformed church but the distance was proving that difficult. Emails, social media and phone calls were becoming our only connection and those were quickly fading as the harsh winter marched onward with record snowfalls and thick, dangerous ice covered roads.
I remember joking with my dear
friend, Debby, as she was on the east coast for Thanksgiving and how she and
her husband would be coming back to the first winter storm. The Mountains, all covered in white was
breathtaking. As I sat in my home
office, I could see the Trinities blanketed in white looking majestic and
regal. However, the snow didn’t stop
that weekend and we missed church. Later
that week, everything melted and we thought, great we can get to church the
next weekend.
That changed drastically. The next snow fell on Saturday and on Sunday was frozen over with a thick layer of ice. We missed church again. Well, in 2013 in NYC we had a tough winter so we both thought we would just slog through it. Then another melt, then a freeze then another storm with more than a foot of snow in a town that usually had 4-6 inches for the entire Winter. Each week the snow came, melted a bit, then froze over then more snow. Soon our little cul-de-sac was a skating rink. Our town had two plows and didn’t come through to our side for months. Each weekend it seemed more snow fell and we missed church again.
By January we had not been to church since Thanksgiving and I was longing for the preached Word and fellowship with other believers. This was not happening and both Bobby and I were beginning to feel it. Then, one Sunday morning, frustrated that we were snowed in again, we looked at the religious channels. We hadn’t done that since we left the evangelical church. However, we figured we might find something a bit more biblical than the charismatics and as God providentially directed we did. This program called Worship for Shut-In.
However, the struggle with guilt, for missing services week after week, began to weigh heavily like the ice-laden snow in our town. I struggled with not being there with friends, not worshipping with brothers and sisters in Christ, and most of all, not taking the Lord’s Supper. That was key for me. I was hungry. I was hungry for the preached Word but mostly this new hunger for the Word in the Sacrament began to build up in my heart. The guilt of missing church week after week began to take its toll. Bobby and I discussed possibly attending the Lutheran church in town (LCMS) but the snow and ice kept us from going local as well. The hunger grew. The guilt became overwhelming.
Then, one Sunday morning, frustrated that we were snowed in again, we looked at the religious channels. We hadn’t done that since we left the evangelical church. However, we figured we might find something a bit more biblical than the charismatics and as God providentially directed we did. This program called Worship for Shut-In.
We sat and watched, listened, even sang along with the old hymns. It was Lutheran. It was liturgical. The pastor even wore a white robe. Well, we knew that some Lutherans were solid Christians and faithful to God’s Word so we watched and were fed. Afterwards, I looked up the website, connected with it via email and we felt a bit refreshed. At least we can get the preached Word until Spring…or so we thought.
Winter had come…and everything changed. Each Sunday, with every weekend snow storm, we would sit ourselves down and together watch Worship for Shut-Ins (now Worship Anew). I would even sing along with some of the choir pieces and solos that were part of the program when I knew the old hymns. Some of these hymns, though, we’d never heard. However, they were rich and deep and I soon came to learn the Lutheran Service Book is filled with hymns that speak of Christ and His Work, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the Lord’s Supper…and Baptism as God’s work alone. We were being fed on good, solid, biblical food. Then came the longing to share this with other believers each week but this just wouldn’t happen.
Saturdays we would prepare to go to church in Boise and then…snow and ice…ice and more snow. Now, because my dissertation was on God’s Providence I was beginning to “get it”. God was hindering us from heading up to Boise. The connections on social media were dropping as we missed service after service. The phone calls began to wain and emails were less and less frequent. Separated from our church family, no longer just by 50 miles, was beginning to take its toll. Hungry for more than just a 30 minute program, though that was helping, we longed to join with the body of Christ to worship and praise our Savior and our God.
Bobby and I would talk…well, mostly I would tell him the longing of my heart. I was missing being with God’s People and if winters were going to be like this one, then we needed to begin attending somewhere in town. Many times during the week I would ask, “Could we just visit the Lutheran Church here in town?” His answer would change the course of our lives. “Sure, go check them out and we can visit.”
I wasn’t sure Bobby was ready to change churches just because I needed something closer to home but he heard my plea and I contacted Worship for Shut-Ins to see what church in town (there were two Lutheran ones we knew of) would be good for us to attend. A few days later an email came that Faith Lutheran was a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which we knew to be more faithful to God’s Word than the other Lutheran denomination. I don’t remember if I left a voice mail or sent an email but I contacted Faith Lutheran and determined that the next Sunday we would visit.
Well, that Sunday came and Bobby was under the weather so I got ready to go to church. I walked in, took a seat in a pew near the back and sat waiting for the service to begin. I looked around at the stained glass, the beautiful pulpit and altar in the front and begin going through the hymnal (which is actually a service book with the whole liturgy in it). Pastor Kellerman approached me and asked if I was Nancy. I said yes and told him that Bobby was ill so I was there alone that day. He welcomed me and a few minutes later service began.
I was familiar with most of the order of service but was shocked when Pastor gave absolution to everyone there. We had corporately confessed our sins as well as had a moment to privately confess them and then the pastor said that he stood in the place of Christ and forgave us. I was shocked to say the least. I must have missed this at the Lutheran Church we would visit in Brooklyn, which friends of ours attend, because this just stunned me. It wasn’t so much that a man was standing there forgiving me as I could read in the service book the words he just said, it was that sense of hearing in my own ears that Christ had forgiven me all my sins that was a bit shocking. In the Dutch reformed churches you are given assurance your sins are forgiven but here I was being told “Your sins are forgiven you…” Writing this just doesn’t bring out the impact of that truth but it awakened me within to the reality of hearing from Christ “daughter, your sins are forgiven…”
As the service continued it seemed to focus completely on the work and words of Christ. Now, the reformed also focus on Christ but there is always this sense that you have to check yourself to make sure you are in the faith. While that is biblical, the proof is where the waters get muddied. In the Dutch Reformed church you look at the fruit you’ve produced to make sure you are a Christian and that you have true faith. However, in this service I was hearing that we are to look at God’s work in our Baptism and that this faith is then fed through the True Blood and True Body of our Lord Jesus in the Sacrament of the Altar, the Lord’s Supper. In the sermon the pastor reminded us that even as believers we can never follow God’s Law perfectly because we are still sinners, however, Christ did it for us and then gives us Himself in the Body and Blood of the Lord’s Supper to sustain us. The focus was on this work of Christ which is completely, totally, 100% outside of us. Faith is given by God through the Sacraments and then sustained in us through Word and Sacrament.
As a reformed gal the Sacraments were not that powerful. They were “signs and seals” of God’s Work but they were not actually God’s Work. This service opened my ears to hear God’s call of Absolution and then how He serves us in the Sunday worship service. As I left, though the Lord’s Supper was not given that Sunday, I was full. Then, a young man, Dennis, came over, asked my name and if I were married. I said I was and that my husband was home sick. His immediate response was, “Oh, we will pray for him. Hope to see you again next week.” That greatly impressed me, almost as much as the service itself, though I have to be honest, I was not used to following along with the liturgy through the Service Book. However, I went home filled with the preached Word of God. As I shared with Bobby how the service was, the topic of the sermon and how friendly everyone was, he said we could go again next Sunday.
A few weeks later, early May, we received a phone call from the Pastor in Boise. During the call I shared how we were visiting the Lutheran church in town as the winter had kept us away. I will never forget his words, “Well, if you have to attend an imperfect church I suppose you have to…” That struck me in two ways.
First, throughout our becoming Reformed we were always told that Lutherans are our brothers and sisters in the faith, only that Luther didn’t go as far as he should in reforming the church and Calvin finished Luther’s work of reformation. Second, was our pastor somehow telling us that Lutherans weren’t a good church? Or was he saying that Lutherans were imperfect while Reformed were perfect? The first question confused me. The latter irked me. I shared this with Bobby and he wondered to me if our pastor thought only the Reformed are perfect?
The following Sunday we both felt well and the weather was perfect. The snow had melted, the ice broken up the streams flowing down the curbs and we could finally travel without feeling the highway was dangerous. However, that phone call providentially redirected us to attend Faith Lutheran again. We walked into Bible study this time and enjoyed hearing those around us answering questions, reading the texts and interacting with the Sunday School lesson for the day. We were warmly welcomed and pastor spoke with us again a little more at length.
The next week, Bobby was having surgery on his foot so we had shared this with some at church. On the morning of the surgery the doctor had called in the prescriptions for pain and antibiotic medicines. While at Wal-Mart two of the ladies from church spotted me and immediately asked if Bobby had the surgery already and then prayed with me. Wow! Was this a benefit of attending a church closer to home that I would meet fellow members at stores in town? Having attended a church 50+ miles away, this did not happen. The joy just overwhelmed me as I shared this with Bobby after his surgery was finished.
That week we decided we would try out the Wednesday Bible Study at Faith Lutheran. When we arrived pastor gave us a binder with their study, which they’d been working on for about a year already: The Reformation and Reformers. We both love Church History and all things reformational and were excited to learn. Once again we heard of the work of God, how He does all things regarding our salvation; of justification by faith alone through grace alone; of the sacraments; of how many in the reformation would begin denying the Presence of Christ in the True Body and Blood of the Sacrament; denying that baptism actually does something; forgive us of our sins and washes us clean. I thought I knew reformation history but over the next several months I was learning more and more and the scriptural teachings were becoming clearer each day. We made our home at Faith Lutheran, becoming members that September. For us
Winter came…and
changed everything.
6/10/20
“Lead Augustine scholar” Ken Wilson using and abusing pre-Augustine fathers on John 3:5
Recently, the Provisionist crowd, led by Leighton Flowers, has pushed the notion that Ken Wilson is foremost Augustine scholar to bash Augustine as introducing Manichaean, Gnostic, Platonic and other pagan beliefs into the early church to give us “Calvinism.” Central to this theme is Ken Wilson’s accusation of Augustine after 411 AD inventing John 3:5 baptismal saving requirement to replace physical birth view of water in the passage. For Wilson, such view of John 3:5 is a denial of free choice theology taught by pre-Augustine fathers, especially when that view also includes infants needing baptism for salvation.
This requires him to really abuse the pre-Augustine fathers as well as pre-412 Augustine on John 3:5. Pre- and post-412 Augustine on the passage will be dealt with in the next article. Here, the pre-Augustine fathers will be dealt with in detail.
Wilson’s dissertation in book form, titled Augustine’s “Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will” will be cited here and interacted with on pre-Augustine fathers and John 3:5.
On page 120, he wrote, “In ‘De baptismo,’ we find abundant proof of Augustine’s persistent traditional free theology.” What was that proof? According to Wilson, Augustine then in 400 AD held to “salvation can occur without water baptism” as if he denied that after 411 AD (which is false). Wilson used that to argue that “John 3:5 has not yet evolved into a proof text.” (Again, false, since the very reference Wilson referred to from Augustine’s On Baptism 2.19 actually treated as John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth text.)
Consider this point by Wilson: holding to traditional free choice theology requires rejecting John 3:5 as baptismal salvation text.
In that case, if we go by that, then the pre-Augustine fathers were anti-traditional free choice theology. To the man, they held to John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth requirement prooftext.
Yet, according to Wilson, on page 167, it was post-411 Augustine who “reinterprets John 3:5 as water baptism instead of physical birth (‘water breaking’) versus spiritual rebirth.” The irony of Wilson accusing Augustine of novelties including this based off Gnosticism and Manichaeanism is that it was the Docetist Gnostics who held to the physical birth reading of John 3:5 and were called out for it by church father and martyr Hippolytus’ Refutation of All Heresies:
“This is, says (the Docetic), what the Saviour affirms: Unless a man be born of water and spirit, be will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, because that which is born of the flesh is flesh.”
Not to mention the likes of Tertullian condemned Cainite Gnostics for rejecting baptismal salvation in On Baptism Chapter 1: “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.”
In fact, on page 174, Wilson claimed Augustine in 420 AD “replies with his allegorized John 3:5, declaring water baptism as essential for salvation, even in sinless newborns.” He said Augustine’s view was “novel John 3:5 proof text.”
With all due respect, it’s Wilson whose view of John 3:5 water as physical birth is both novel and allegorical. And it is complete whole sale revisionist history to claim Augustine invented baptismal salvation and John 3:5 as prooftext of that out of Manicheanism and Gnosticism when 1) no father prior to Augustine denied baptismal salvation and John 3:5 view of it and 2) Gnostics were the ones who rejected baptismal salvation and John 3:5 as prooftext of that and were condemned for both by pre-Augustine fathers.
Pre-Augustine fathers on John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth and salvation include (and note both Origen and Ambrose especially seeing John 3:5 as applying to infants as well because they didn’t hold to infants are born innocent:
Justin’s First Apology, Chapter 61: “Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5”
Irenaeus’ Fragment 34: “And dipped himself, says [the Scripture], seven times in Jordan. 2 Kings 5:14 It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5”
Tertullian’s On Baptism, Chapter 13: “For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: Go, He says, teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The comparison with this law of that definition, Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens, has tied faith to the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers used to be baptized.”
Hippolytus' Discourse on the Holy Theophany: “8. But give me now your best attention, I pray you, for I wish to go back to the fountain of life, and to view the fountain that gushes with healing. The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the layer he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all you kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism. I bring good tidings of life to you who tarry in the darkness of ignorance. Come into liberty from slavery, into a kingdom from tyranny, into incorruption from corruption. And how, says one, shall we come? How? By water and the Holy Ghost. This is the water in conjunction with the Spirit, by which paradise is watered, by which the earth is enriched, by which plants grow, by which animals multiply, and (to sum up the whole in a single word) by which man is begotten again and endued with life, in which also Christ was baptized, and in which the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.”
Origen's Romans 5.9 commentary: “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.”
Catechetical Lecture 3 of Cyril of Jerusalem: “4. For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our body washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22 When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both you can not possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He says, Unless a man be born anew (and He adds the words) of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:3 Neither does he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit, receive the grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but receive not the seal by water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine, for it is Jesus who has declared it: and here is the proof of the statement from Holy Scripture. Cornelius was a just man, who was honoured with a vision of Angels, and had set up his prayers and almsdeeds as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.”
Ambrose’s On the Mysteries: “20. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.”
Ambrose's On Abraham, Chapter 2.84: “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.”
Chrysostom’s Homily 25 on the Gospel of John (3:5): “What then is the use of the water? This too I will tell you hereafter, when I reveal to you the hidden mystery. There are also other points of mystical teaching connected with the matter, but for the present I will mention to you one out of many. What is this one? In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. As it is easy for us to dip and to lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfills all this. To show that what we say is no conjecture, hear Paul saying, We are buried with Him by Baptism into death: and again, Our old man is crucified with Him: and again, We have been planted together in the likeness of His death. Romans 6:4-6 And not only is Baptism called a cross, but the cross is called Baptism. With the Baptism, says Christ, that I am baptized withal shall you be baptized Mark 10:39: and, I have a Baptism to be baptized with Luke 12:50 (which you know not); for as we easily dip and lift our heads again, so He also easily died and rose again when He willed or rather much more easily, though He tarried the three days for the dispensation of a certain mystery.”
Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Baptism of Christ: “Let us however, if it seems well, persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism, starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well, is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:— for his visible body, water, the sensible element — for his soul, which we cannot see, the Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably. For the Spirit breathes where He wills, and you hear His voice, but cannot tell whence He comes or whither He goes. He blesses the body that is baptized, and the water that baptizes. Despise not, therefore, the Divine laver, nor think lightly of it, as a common thing, on account of the use of water. For the power that operates is mighty, and wonderful are the things that are wrought thereby.”
Basil the Great's De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter 15: “Hence it follows that the answer to our question why the water was associated with the Spirit is clear: the reason is because in baptism two ends were proposed; on the one hand, the destroying of the body of sin, that it may never bear fruit unto death; on the other hand, our living unto the Spirit, and having our fruit in holiness; the water receiving the body as in a tomb figures death, while the Spirit pours in the quickening power, renewing our souls from the deadness of sin unto their original life. This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit. For baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God.”
Make no mistake about it. What Wilson is offering is fake history. And no amount of claiming to be lead Augustine scholar take away from that. But if folks want to play appeal to authority card to defend this...
Note what Jaroslav Pelikan wrote on page 163 in Christian Tradition vol 1:
"Although references to the doctrine of baptism are scattered throughout the Christian literature of the second and third centuries, only one extant treatise from that period is devoted exclusively to the subject, that of Tertullian. And the most succinct statement by Tertullian on the doctrine of baptism actually came, not in his treatise on baptism, but in his polemic against Marcion. (It was a similar polemical need that called forth Irenaeus' summary of the catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.) Contending against Marcion's dualism between the Creator and the Redeemer, Tertullian argued that none of the four basic gifts of baptism could be granted if that dualism was maintained. The four gifts were: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. All these would be vitiated on the basis of Marcion's suppositions. It is noteworthy that Tertullian, regardless of how much a Montanist he may have been at this point, was summarizing what the doctrine was at his time- as well as probably before his time and certainly since his time. Tertullian's enumeration of the gifts of baptism would be difficult to duplicate in so summary a form from other Christian writers, but those who did speak of baptism also spoke of one or more of these gifts.
"Baptism brought the remission of sins; the doctrine of baptism was in fact the occasion for many of the references to forgiveness of sins in the literature of these centuries."
And on page 292, he wrote:
"Augustine, who learned from Ambrose to draw the anthropological implication of the doctrine of the virgin birth learned from Cyprian- and specifically from the epistle just quoted, which he called Cyprian's 'book on the baptism of infants'- to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they were nevertheless held responsible. 'The uniqueness of the remedy' in baptism, it could be argued, proved 'the very depth of evil' into which mankind had sunk through Adam's fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. Cyprian's teaching showed that this view of sin was not an innovation, but the 'ancient, implanted opinion of the church.' On the basis of Cyprian's discussion of infant baptism and of Ambrose's interpretation of the virgin birth, Augustine could claim that 'what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the catholic faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by the fathers and to this time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it.' This faith he expressed in his theology of grace."
Oxford graduate and renown historian JND Kelly wrote in Early Christian Doctrines:
“From the beginning baptism was universally accepted rite of admission to the Church; only ‘those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name’ may partake of the eucharist. Whether or not administered originally in Christ’s name only, as numerous New Testament texts appear to suggest, in the second century it was administered in water in the threefold name. As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins, but the earlier Pauline conception of it as the application of Christ’s atoning death seems to have faded. On the other hand, the theory that it mediated the Holy Spirit was fairly general. Clement appears to have had this in mind in his reference to ‘one Spirit of grace poured out upon us,’ and this is clearly what lies behind the description of baptism as ‘the seal’ or ‘the seal of the Son of God,’ which the baptized must keep unsullied, in 2 Clement and Hermas. According to the latter, we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit. In ‘Barnabas’ it is the remission of sins which is emphasized; we enter the water weighed down and defiled by our transgressions, only to emerge ‘bearing fruit in our hearts, having fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit.’ The Spirit is God Himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism, he remarks, our heart was the abode or demons; and Ignatius develops this idea, suggesting that baptism supplies us with weapons for our spiritual warfare.”
Philip Schaff explained it well in his History of the Christian Church:
"Pious parents would naturally feel a desire to consecrate their offspring from the very beginning to the service of the Redeemer, and find a precedent in the ordinance of circumcision. This desire would be strengthened in cases of sickness by the prevailing notion of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted—for he combats only its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism. No time can be fixed at which it was first introduced. Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, and still more, the almost equally ancient abuse of infant communion, imply the existence of infant baptism. Heretics also practised it, and were not censured for it. The apostolic fathers make, indeed, no mention of it. But their silence proves nothing; for they hardly touch upon baptism at all, except Hermas, and he declares it necessary to salvation, even for the patriarchs in Hades (therefore, as we may well infer, for children also). Justin Martyr expressly teaches the capacity of all men for spiritual circumcision by baptism; and his “all” can with the less propriety be limited, since he is here speaking to a Jew. He also says that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age have been from childhood disciples of Christ. Polycarp was eighty-six years a Christian, and must have been baptized in early youth. According to Irenaeus, his pupil and a faithful bearer of Johannean tradition, Christ passed through all the stages of life, to sanctify them all, and came to redeem, through himself, “all who through him are born again unto God, sucklings, children, boys, youths, and adults.” This profound view seems to involve an acknowledgment not only of the idea of infant baptism, but also of the practice of it; for in the mind of Irenaeus and the ancient church baptism and regeneration were intimately connected and almost identified. In an infant, in fact, any regeneration but through baptism cannot be easily conceived. A moral and spiritual regeneration, as distinct from sacramental, would imply conversion, and this is a conscious act of the will, an exercise of repentance and faith, of which the infant is not capable. In the churches of Egypt infant baptism must have been practised from the first. For, aside from some not very clear expressions of Clement of Alexandria, Origen distinctly derives it from the tradition of the apostles; and through his journeys in the East and West he was well acquainted with the practice of the church in his time. The only opponent of infant baptism among the fathers is the eccentric and schismatic Tertullian, of North Africa. He condemns the hastening of the innocent age to the forgiveness of sins, and intrusting it with divine gifts, while we would not commit to it earthly property. Whoever considers the solemnity of baptism, will shrink more from the receiving, than from the postponement of it. But the very manner of Tertullian’s opposition proves as much in favor of infant baptism as against it. He meets it not as an innovation, but as a prevalent custom; and he meets it not with exegetical nor historical arguments, but only with considerations of religious prudence. His opposition to it is founded on his view of the regenerating effect of baptism, and of the impossibility of having mortal sins forgiven in the church after baptism; this ordinance cannot be repeated, and washes out only the guilt contracted before its reception. On the same ground he advises healthy adults, especially the unmarried, to postpone this sacrament until they shall be no longer in danger of forfeiting forever the grace of baptism by committing adultery, murder, apostasy, or any other of the seven crimes which he calls mortal sins. On the same principle his advice applies only to healthy children, not to sickly ones, if we consider that he held baptism to be the indispensable condition of forgiveness of sins, and taught the doctrine of hereditary sin. With him this position resulted from moral earnestness, and a lively sense of the great solemnity of the baptismal vow. But many put off baptism to their death-bed, in moral levity and presumption, that they might sin as long as they could. Tertullian’s opposition, moreover, had no influence, at least no theoretical influence, even in North Africa. His disciple Cyprian differed from him wholly. In his day it was no question, whether the children of Christian parents might and should be baptized—on this all were agreed,—but whether they might be baptized so early as the second or third day after birth, or, according to the precedent of the Jewish circumcision, on the eighth day. Cyprian, and a council of sixty-six bishops held at Carthage in 253 under his lead, decided for the earlier time, yet without condemning the delay. It was in a measure the same view of the almost magical effect of the baptismal water, and of its absolute necessity to salvation, which led Cyprian to hasten, and Tertullian to postpone the holy ordinance; one looking more at the beneficent effect of the sacrament in regard to past sins, the other at the danger of sins to come."
Facts are against Wilson and real scholars are against Wilson on the John 3:5 baptismal regeneration novelty from Augustine claim.
Here we stand.
This requires him to really abuse the pre-Augustine fathers as well as pre-412 Augustine on John 3:5. Pre- and post-412 Augustine on the passage will be dealt with in the next article. Here, the pre-Augustine fathers will be dealt with in detail.
Wilson’s dissertation in book form, titled Augustine’s “Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will” will be cited here and interacted with on pre-Augustine fathers and John 3:5.
On page 120, he wrote, “In ‘De baptismo,’ we find abundant proof of Augustine’s persistent traditional free theology.” What was that proof? According to Wilson, Augustine then in 400 AD held to “salvation can occur without water baptism” as if he denied that after 411 AD (which is false). Wilson used that to argue that “John 3:5 has not yet evolved into a proof text.” (Again, false, since the very reference Wilson referred to from Augustine’s On Baptism 2.19 actually treated as John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth text.)
Consider this point by Wilson: holding to traditional free choice theology requires rejecting John 3:5 as baptismal salvation text.
In that case, if we go by that, then the pre-Augustine fathers were anti-traditional free choice theology. To the man, they held to John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth requirement prooftext.
Yet, according to Wilson, on page 167, it was post-411 Augustine who “reinterprets John 3:5 as water baptism instead of physical birth (‘water breaking’) versus spiritual rebirth.” The irony of Wilson accusing Augustine of novelties including this based off Gnosticism and Manichaeanism is that it was the Docetist Gnostics who held to the physical birth reading of John 3:5 and were called out for it by church father and martyr Hippolytus’ Refutation of All Heresies:
“This is, says (the Docetic), what the Saviour affirms: Unless a man be born of water and spirit, be will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, because that which is born of the flesh is flesh.”
Not to mention the likes of Tertullian condemned Cainite Gnostics for rejecting baptismal salvation in On Baptism Chapter 1: “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.”
In fact, on page 174, Wilson claimed Augustine in 420 AD “replies with his allegorized John 3:5, declaring water baptism as essential for salvation, even in sinless newborns.” He said Augustine’s view was “novel John 3:5 proof text.”
With all due respect, it’s Wilson whose view of John 3:5 water as physical birth is both novel and allegorical. And it is complete whole sale revisionist history to claim Augustine invented baptismal salvation and John 3:5 as prooftext of that out of Manicheanism and Gnosticism when 1) no father prior to Augustine denied baptismal salvation and John 3:5 view of it and 2) Gnostics were the ones who rejected baptismal salvation and John 3:5 as prooftext of that and were condemned for both by pre-Augustine fathers.
Pre-Augustine fathers on John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth and salvation include (and note both Origen and Ambrose especially seeing John 3:5 as applying to infants as well because they didn’t hold to infants are born innocent:
Justin’s First Apology, Chapter 61: “Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5”
Irenaeus’ Fragment 34: “And dipped himself, says [the Scripture], seven times in Jordan. 2 Kings 5:14 It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5”
Tertullian’s On Baptism, Chapter 13: “For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: Go, He says, teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The comparison with this law of that definition, Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens, has tied faith to the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers used to be baptized.”
Hippolytus' Discourse on the Holy Theophany: “8. But give me now your best attention, I pray you, for I wish to go back to the fountain of life, and to view the fountain that gushes with healing. The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the layer he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all you kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism. I bring good tidings of life to you who tarry in the darkness of ignorance. Come into liberty from slavery, into a kingdom from tyranny, into incorruption from corruption. And how, says one, shall we come? How? By water and the Holy Ghost. This is the water in conjunction with the Spirit, by which paradise is watered, by which the earth is enriched, by which plants grow, by which animals multiply, and (to sum up the whole in a single word) by which man is begotten again and endued with life, in which also Christ was baptized, and in which the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.”
Origen's Romans 5.9 commentary: “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.”
Catechetical Lecture 3 of Cyril of Jerusalem: “4. For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our body washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22 When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both you can not possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He says, Unless a man be born anew (and He adds the words) of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:3 Neither does he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit, receive the grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but receive not the seal by water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine, for it is Jesus who has declared it: and here is the proof of the statement from Holy Scripture. Cornelius was a just man, who was honoured with a vision of Angels, and had set up his prayers and almsdeeds as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.”
Ambrose’s On the Mysteries: “20. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.”
Ambrose's On Abraham, Chapter 2.84: “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.”
Chrysostom’s Homily 25 on the Gospel of John (3:5): “What then is the use of the water? This too I will tell you hereafter, when I reveal to you the hidden mystery. There are also other points of mystical teaching connected with the matter, but for the present I will mention to you one out of many. What is this one? In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. As it is easy for us to dip and to lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfills all this. To show that what we say is no conjecture, hear Paul saying, We are buried with Him by Baptism into death: and again, Our old man is crucified with Him: and again, We have been planted together in the likeness of His death. Romans 6:4-6 And not only is Baptism called a cross, but the cross is called Baptism. With the Baptism, says Christ, that I am baptized withal shall you be baptized Mark 10:39: and, I have a Baptism to be baptized with Luke 12:50 (which you know not); for as we easily dip and lift our heads again, so He also easily died and rose again when He willed or rather much more easily, though He tarried the three days for the dispensation of a certain mystery.”
Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Baptism of Christ: “Let us however, if it seems well, persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism, starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well, is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:— for his visible body, water, the sensible element — for his soul, which we cannot see, the Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably. For the Spirit breathes where He wills, and you hear His voice, but cannot tell whence He comes or whither He goes. He blesses the body that is baptized, and the water that baptizes. Despise not, therefore, the Divine laver, nor think lightly of it, as a common thing, on account of the use of water. For the power that operates is mighty, and wonderful are the things that are wrought thereby.”
Basil the Great's De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter 15: “Hence it follows that the answer to our question why the water was associated with the Spirit is clear: the reason is because in baptism two ends were proposed; on the one hand, the destroying of the body of sin, that it may never bear fruit unto death; on the other hand, our living unto the Spirit, and having our fruit in holiness; the water receiving the body as in a tomb figures death, while the Spirit pours in the quickening power, renewing our souls from the deadness of sin unto their original life. This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit. For baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God.”
Make no mistake about it. What Wilson is offering is fake history. And no amount of claiming to be lead Augustine scholar take away from that. But if folks want to play appeal to authority card to defend this...
Note what Jaroslav Pelikan wrote on page 163 in Christian Tradition vol 1:
"Although references to the doctrine of baptism are scattered throughout the Christian literature of the second and third centuries, only one extant treatise from that period is devoted exclusively to the subject, that of Tertullian. And the most succinct statement by Tertullian on the doctrine of baptism actually came, not in his treatise on baptism, but in his polemic against Marcion. (It was a similar polemical need that called forth Irenaeus' summary of the catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.) Contending against Marcion's dualism between the Creator and the Redeemer, Tertullian argued that none of the four basic gifts of baptism could be granted if that dualism was maintained. The four gifts were: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. All these would be vitiated on the basis of Marcion's suppositions. It is noteworthy that Tertullian, regardless of how much a Montanist he may have been at this point, was summarizing what the doctrine was at his time- as well as probably before his time and certainly since his time. Tertullian's enumeration of the gifts of baptism would be difficult to duplicate in so summary a form from other Christian writers, but those who did speak of baptism also spoke of one or more of these gifts.
"Baptism brought the remission of sins; the doctrine of baptism was in fact the occasion for many of the references to forgiveness of sins in the literature of these centuries."
And on page 292, he wrote:
"Augustine, who learned from Ambrose to draw the anthropological implication of the doctrine of the virgin birth learned from Cyprian- and specifically from the epistle just quoted, which he called Cyprian's 'book on the baptism of infants'- to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they were nevertheless held responsible. 'The uniqueness of the remedy' in baptism, it could be argued, proved 'the very depth of evil' into which mankind had sunk through Adam's fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. Cyprian's teaching showed that this view of sin was not an innovation, but the 'ancient, implanted opinion of the church.' On the basis of Cyprian's discussion of infant baptism and of Ambrose's interpretation of the virgin birth, Augustine could claim that 'what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the catholic faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by the fathers and to this time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it.' This faith he expressed in his theology of grace."
Oxford graduate and renown historian JND Kelly wrote in Early Christian Doctrines:
“From the beginning baptism was universally accepted rite of admission to the Church; only ‘those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name’ may partake of the eucharist. Whether or not administered originally in Christ’s name only, as numerous New Testament texts appear to suggest, in the second century it was administered in water in the threefold name. As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins, but the earlier Pauline conception of it as the application of Christ’s atoning death seems to have faded. On the other hand, the theory that it mediated the Holy Spirit was fairly general. Clement appears to have had this in mind in his reference to ‘one Spirit of grace poured out upon us,’ and this is clearly what lies behind the description of baptism as ‘the seal’ or ‘the seal of the Son of God,’ which the baptized must keep unsullied, in 2 Clement and Hermas. According to the latter, we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit. In ‘Barnabas’ it is the remission of sins which is emphasized; we enter the water weighed down and defiled by our transgressions, only to emerge ‘bearing fruit in our hearts, having fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit.’ The Spirit is God Himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism, he remarks, our heart was the abode or demons; and Ignatius develops this idea, suggesting that baptism supplies us with weapons for our spiritual warfare.”
Philip Schaff explained it well in his History of the Christian Church:
"Pious parents would naturally feel a desire to consecrate their offspring from the very beginning to the service of the Redeemer, and find a precedent in the ordinance of circumcision. This desire would be strengthened in cases of sickness by the prevailing notion of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted—for he combats only its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism. No time can be fixed at which it was first introduced. Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, and still more, the almost equally ancient abuse of infant communion, imply the existence of infant baptism. Heretics also practised it, and were not censured for it. The apostolic fathers make, indeed, no mention of it. But their silence proves nothing; for they hardly touch upon baptism at all, except Hermas, and he declares it necessary to salvation, even for the patriarchs in Hades (therefore, as we may well infer, for children also). Justin Martyr expressly teaches the capacity of all men for spiritual circumcision by baptism; and his “all” can with the less propriety be limited, since he is here speaking to a Jew. He also says that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age have been from childhood disciples of Christ. Polycarp was eighty-six years a Christian, and must have been baptized in early youth. According to Irenaeus, his pupil and a faithful bearer of Johannean tradition, Christ passed through all the stages of life, to sanctify them all, and came to redeem, through himself, “all who through him are born again unto God, sucklings, children, boys, youths, and adults.” This profound view seems to involve an acknowledgment not only of the idea of infant baptism, but also of the practice of it; for in the mind of Irenaeus and the ancient church baptism and regeneration were intimately connected and almost identified. In an infant, in fact, any regeneration but through baptism cannot be easily conceived. A moral and spiritual regeneration, as distinct from sacramental, would imply conversion, and this is a conscious act of the will, an exercise of repentance and faith, of which the infant is not capable. In the churches of Egypt infant baptism must have been practised from the first. For, aside from some not very clear expressions of Clement of Alexandria, Origen distinctly derives it from the tradition of the apostles; and through his journeys in the East and West he was well acquainted with the practice of the church in his time. The only opponent of infant baptism among the fathers is the eccentric and schismatic Tertullian, of North Africa. He condemns the hastening of the innocent age to the forgiveness of sins, and intrusting it with divine gifts, while we would not commit to it earthly property. Whoever considers the solemnity of baptism, will shrink more from the receiving, than from the postponement of it. But the very manner of Tertullian’s opposition proves as much in favor of infant baptism as against it. He meets it not as an innovation, but as a prevalent custom; and he meets it not with exegetical nor historical arguments, but only with considerations of religious prudence. His opposition to it is founded on his view of the regenerating effect of baptism, and of the impossibility of having mortal sins forgiven in the church after baptism; this ordinance cannot be repeated, and washes out only the guilt contracted before its reception. On the same ground he advises healthy adults, especially the unmarried, to postpone this sacrament until they shall be no longer in danger of forfeiting forever the grace of baptism by committing adultery, murder, apostasy, or any other of the seven crimes which he calls mortal sins. On the same principle his advice applies only to healthy children, not to sickly ones, if we consider that he held baptism to be the indispensable condition of forgiveness of sins, and taught the doctrine of hereditary sin. With him this position resulted from moral earnestness, and a lively sense of the great solemnity of the baptismal vow. But many put off baptism to their death-bed, in moral levity and presumption, that they might sin as long as they could. Tertullian’s opposition, moreover, had no influence, at least no theoretical influence, even in North Africa. His disciple Cyprian differed from him wholly. In his day it was no question, whether the children of Christian parents might and should be baptized—on this all were agreed,—but whether they might be baptized so early as the second or third day after birth, or, according to the precedent of the Jewish circumcision, on the eighth day. Cyprian, and a council of sixty-six bishops held at Carthage in 253 under his lead, decided for the earlier time, yet without condemning the delay. It was in a measure the same view of the almost magical effect of the baptismal water, and of its absolute necessity to salvation, which led Cyprian to hasten, and Tertullian to postpone the holy ordinance; one looking more at the beneficent effect of the sacrament in regard to past sins, the other at the danger of sins to come."
Facts are against Wilson and real scholars are against Wilson on the John 3:5 baptismal regeneration novelty from Augustine claim.
Here we stand.
6/6/20
Jesus, Antifa, and Trump
I have pondered, and hesitated, to write this blog. Sure, the title of the blog is perhaps an eye catcher. It's going to involve some American politics and issues, but mostly, this will be about how we Lutheran Christians should respond in times like these. To lay my cards on the table at the outset, I am first and foremost a Confessional Lutheran. Secondarily, I am a Constitutional Conservative.
Times of trail have come upon us American Christians. We are used to the easy life, where our religion goes on unhindered and we joyfully meet every Sunday to receive Christ's gifts. But things are drastically changing, and fast at that.
If your head has been buried in the sand, a lot has been happening in the United States. Beginning earlier this year, we were hit with the covid19 pandemic, which was exploited by government leaders to impose draconian measures against their citizens; in many cases depriving people of their livelihoods, destroying businesses, and trampling on our right to assemble and freedom of religion. To top it off, the brutal and heinous treatment by Minneapolis police resulted in the death of George Floyd, who happens to be African American. From there, the activist group Black Lives Matter sprung into action, and rightfully so. Peaceful protest is an American right enshrined in our Constitution. From there, all hell broke loose.
Many have opined, and I'm inclined to agree, that what has transpired after this has been fueled by Marxist rage whipped up by the far left. We have been here before in history, states scholar Gary Saul Morson, professor of Russian literature at Northwestern University. In the June 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Morson states, "To me it's astonishingly like late 19th, early 20th century Russia, when basically the entire educated class felt you had to be against the regime or some sort of revolutionary." We have not arrived at a revolutionary situation, says Mr. Morson, but we certainly have arrived at a spot where well intentioned liberal people will not call lawless violence wrong. Of course, very few on the left in general is calling anything out because politics. And stuff. If they are, it's very muted. What began as peaceful protesting with some looting (which is always wrong), has turned into a full fledged, nationwide riot, that has little to nothing to do with George Floyd anymore. Hijacked by the openly Communist and Anarchist group Antifa, the nation has turned into a battle zone. In the wake, President Trump has declared Antifa a domestic terrorist group and has deployed the military to oppose the rioting and massive destruction of property. This has evolved in to an ideological war, to put it bluntly. We have a far left movement hell bent on destroying the country from within, and a President who is deploying troops against his own country. The whole thing is very dystopic and messed up, to say the least.
So how should we, as Christians, look at all this? There are a few things to be said.
First and foremost, it is imperative for us as Lutherans to keep the gospel the gospel. Difficult situations are nothing new for Christians. We've had it easy in the United States for the most part. We've had a good run, so to speak, with our Constitution protecting freedom of religion and assembly, and speech. Now with Constitutional rights under attack, we must stick to what Christ has given us. Amending the gospel is not an option.
Second, why are we surprised? Didn't Jesus say that we will be hated for his name sake? (Matt 10:16-25) Scripture also talks about us suffering quite a bit, especially in the New Testament. (Rom 8, 2Cor 1, Col 1, 2The 1, 2 Tim 2, etc.) I'm not saying we are there yet, but the possibility exists, and indeed, is given to us as a gift in Scripture. This does not mean that we should go looking for persecution and suffering, of course, as many Christians are wont to do, but that these trials will build us up (Rom 5).
Third, we must be cautious not to abuse Romans 13. "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval." (Rom 13:3) To put it precisely, this does not mean to obey government no matter what they say. It does however mean that we ought to be lawful citizens as much as we possibly can, provided they are not demanding bad conduct from us. "We must obey God rather than men," (Acts 5:29) St. Peter and the Apostles answered before the council. This is a legitimate answer to the government as well, if it comes to that.
Fourth, there are certain things that Christians simply must oppose, and must obey God and not men. We must oppose a state that prohibits free Christian fellowship and freedom of religion, to the extent that they are punishing those who gather and worship, or have made Christianity illegal. Communist states are notorious for this. (This is far left ideology. Hint hint) The Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet Union are a great example. This revolution and state was atheist and persecuted Christians harshly. The Russian Orthodox Church was silenced.
Fifth, we must equally oppose a state that interferes in the church's business, changing the church to be something it is not. A good example of this is Nazi Germany, in which the state basically interjected itself into the church and indoctrinated National Socialism into its teachings. Many notable Lutheran pastors opposed this. Hermann Sasse was a strong voice, as was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Sixth, we must avoid confusing the gospel and the Christian faith with the American dream. Jesus is not the poster boy for the Republican party. Nor for the democrats. He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29) Our political stances may not be God's. Keep the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world separate. But, keep in mind Isaiah 5:20. Calling evil good is never good.
Seventh, there are certain practices the church must denounce as evil. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20) We simply cannot, as Christians, call good evil and evil good. To do so is against God and puts a person in a state of unrepentant sin. This goes for any issue. As an example, calling abortion good would be to call murder good, and hence to call evil good. We cannot do that as Christians. There are many more issues which we could write volumes about, but for now this one will suffice. As I have argued in the past, there is no such thing as a liberal Christian, precisely for this reason. A liberal Christian is a Christian who makes Jesus out to be a cultural socialist hero and calls evil good.
Unrepentant Christians?
Sin, Repentance, and Theological Liberalism
Eighth, and I include this one separately from the seventh, is racism, because it is a huge issue today. This one should be a super easy one for Christians, but we too carry around our sinful nature and commit racist thoughts and acts. The bottom line regarding racism is that Christ died for each and every single individual person ever conceived on this Earth. He died for the Pharisee. He died for the Philistine. He died for the Jew. He died for the Indonesian. He died for the German. He died for the African American. He died for the Native American. He died for Christians. He died for Muslims. And Atheists. And everyone else.
If Christ died for everyone unilaterally; each individual, how can we ever think that we are superior to another person based on our race? Jesus' blood was shed for us equally. The solution to racism is not sociology. It's theology.
Let us then take heart, for the world will hate us, but Christ has overcome the world.(John 16:33, 1Jo 4:4) Let us pray for the things that are dividing us as a nation. Let us grieve with those who are grieving. For both the family of George Floyd to the families of the slain in the streets in the riots. Let us be bold to call evil as it is and to also call good as it is.
Most of all, let us be even bolder to proclaim Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of our sins, for everyone. From Donald Trump to Antifa to Black Lives Matter to White Supremacists. The same Christ has died for all of them, and the world needs to hear it now more than ever.
+Pax+
Times of trail have come upon us American Christians. We are used to the easy life, where our religion goes on unhindered and we joyfully meet every Sunday to receive Christ's gifts. But things are drastically changing, and fast at that.
If your head has been buried in the sand, a lot has been happening in the United States. Beginning earlier this year, we were hit with the covid19 pandemic, which was exploited by government leaders to impose draconian measures against their citizens; in many cases depriving people of their livelihoods, destroying businesses, and trampling on our right to assemble and freedom of religion. To top it off, the brutal and heinous treatment by Minneapolis police resulted in the death of George Floyd, who happens to be African American. From there, the activist group Black Lives Matter sprung into action, and rightfully so. Peaceful protest is an American right enshrined in our Constitution. From there, all hell broke loose.
Many have opined, and I'm inclined to agree, that what has transpired after this has been fueled by Marxist rage whipped up by the far left. We have been here before in history, states scholar Gary Saul Morson, professor of Russian literature at Northwestern University. In the June 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Morson states, "To me it's astonishingly like late 19th, early 20th century Russia, when basically the entire educated class felt you had to be against the regime or some sort of revolutionary." We have not arrived at a revolutionary situation, says Mr. Morson, but we certainly have arrived at a spot where well intentioned liberal people will not call lawless violence wrong. Of course, very few on the left in general is calling anything out because politics. And stuff. If they are, it's very muted. What began as peaceful protesting with some looting (which is always wrong), has turned into a full fledged, nationwide riot, that has little to nothing to do with George Floyd anymore. Hijacked by the openly Communist and Anarchist group Antifa, the nation has turned into a battle zone. In the wake, President Trump has declared Antifa a domestic terrorist group and has deployed the military to oppose the rioting and massive destruction of property. This has evolved in to an ideological war, to put it bluntly. We have a far left movement hell bent on destroying the country from within, and a President who is deploying troops against his own country. The whole thing is very dystopic and messed up, to say the least.
So how should we, as Christians, look at all this? There are a few things to be said.
First and foremost, it is imperative for us as Lutherans to keep the gospel the gospel. Difficult situations are nothing new for Christians. We've had it easy in the United States for the most part. We've had a good run, so to speak, with our Constitution protecting freedom of religion and assembly, and speech. Now with Constitutional rights under attack, we must stick to what Christ has given us. Amending the gospel is not an option.
Second, why are we surprised? Didn't Jesus say that we will be hated for his name sake? (Matt 10:16-25) Scripture also talks about us suffering quite a bit, especially in the New Testament. (Rom 8, 2Cor 1, Col 1, 2The 1, 2 Tim 2, etc.) I'm not saying we are there yet, but the possibility exists, and indeed, is given to us as a gift in Scripture. This does not mean that we should go looking for persecution and suffering, of course, as many Christians are wont to do, but that these trials will build us up (Rom 5).
Third, we must be cautious not to abuse Romans 13. "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval." (Rom 13:3) To put it precisely, this does not mean to obey government no matter what they say. It does however mean that we ought to be lawful citizens as much as we possibly can, provided they are not demanding bad conduct from us. "We must obey God rather than men," (Acts 5:29) St. Peter and the Apostles answered before the council. This is a legitimate answer to the government as well, if it comes to that.
Fourth, there are certain things that Christians simply must oppose, and must obey God and not men. We must oppose a state that prohibits free Christian fellowship and freedom of religion, to the extent that they are punishing those who gather and worship, or have made Christianity illegal. Communist states are notorious for this. (This is far left ideology. Hint hint) The Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet Union are a great example. This revolution and state was atheist and persecuted Christians harshly. The Russian Orthodox Church was silenced.
Fifth, we must equally oppose a state that interferes in the church's business, changing the church to be something it is not. A good example of this is Nazi Germany, in which the state basically interjected itself into the church and indoctrinated National Socialism into its teachings. Many notable Lutheran pastors opposed this. Hermann Sasse was a strong voice, as was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Sixth, we must avoid confusing the gospel and the Christian faith with the American dream. Jesus is not the poster boy for the Republican party. Nor for the democrats. He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29) Our political stances may not be God's. Keep the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world separate. But, keep in mind Isaiah 5:20. Calling evil good is never good.
Seventh, there are certain practices the church must denounce as evil. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20) We simply cannot, as Christians, call good evil and evil good. To do so is against God and puts a person in a state of unrepentant sin. This goes for any issue. As an example, calling abortion good would be to call murder good, and hence to call evil good. We cannot do that as Christians. There are many more issues which we could write volumes about, but for now this one will suffice. As I have argued in the past, there is no such thing as a liberal Christian, precisely for this reason. A liberal Christian is a Christian who makes Jesus out to be a cultural socialist hero and calls evil good.
Unrepentant Christians?
Sin, Repentance, and Theological Liberalism
Eighth, and I include this one separately from the seventh, is racism, because it is a huge issue today. This one should be a super easy one for Christians, but we too carry around our sinful nature and commit racist thoughts and acts. The bottom line regarding racism is that Christ died for each and every single individual person ever conceived on this Earth. He died for the Pharisee. He died for the Philistine. He died for the Jew. He died for the Indonesian. He died for the German. He died for the African American. He died for the Native American. He died for Christians. He died for Muslims. And Atheists. And everyone else.
If Christ died for everyone unilaterally; each individual, how can we ever think that we are superior to another person based on our race? Jesus' blood was shed for us equally. The solution to racism is not sociology. It's theology.
Let us then take heart, for the world will hate us, but Christ has overcome the world.(John 16:33, 1Jo 4:4) Let us pray for the things that are dividing us as a nation. Let us grieve with those who are grieving. For both the family of George Floyd to the families of the slain in the streets in the riots. Let us be bold to call evil as it is and to also call good as it is.
Most of all, let us be even bolder to proclaim Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of our sins, for everyone. From Donald Trump to Antifa to Black Lives Matter to White Supremacists. The same Christ has died for all of them, and the world needs to hear it now more than ever.
+Pax+
5/27/20
All Trials Shall Be Like A Dream That Is Past
There is such a beautiful Lutheran hymn: There Many Shall Come From the East.
Each stanza ends with: Have mercy on us, O Jesus!
One of my most favorite lines in the hymn, in this pain-filled, trial-filled great tribulation of tears and travail, is this one:
"All trials shall be like a dream that is past."
It is difficult for me to sing the whole stanza #3 without tearing up and even weeping.
All trials shall be like a dream that is past,
Forgotten all trouble and mourning.
All questions and doubts have been answered at last,
When rises the light of that morning.
Have mercy upon us, O Jesus!
O come quickly, Lord Jesus!
Each stanza ends with: Have mercy on us, O Jesus!
One of my most favorite lines in the hymn, in this pain-filled, trial-filled great tribulation of tears and travail, is this one:
"All trials shall be like a dream that is past."
It is difficult for me to sing the whole stanza #3 without tearing up and even weeping.
All trials shall be like a dream that is past,
Forgotten all trouble and mourning.
All questions and doubts have been answered at last,
When rises the light of that morning.
Have mercy upon us, O Jesus!
O come quickly, Lord Jesus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)