The ever changing story of Augustine and the fathers on infant baptism according to Ken Wilson

Regardless of the recent spins by Leighton Flowers and Soteriology101 that baptism issue has little to do with Ken Wilson’s thesis, here’s what Ken Wilson’s book The Foundation of Augustinianism-Calvinism, page 78 said of what Augustine’s “novel” theology of predestination, grace and freewill were based on:

“The critical foundation of infant baptism for salvation in Augustine's novel theology cannot be overstated.”

What were Wilson’s arguments on this? Augustine, according to him, ended up holding to “Calvinistic” views because he needed to find justification in the Pelagian debate for infant baptism practice that he and all other fathers, according to Wilson, had no idea why it was done prior to 412 AD. Augustine was stated as inventing original sin guilt and infant baptismal salvation (which in turn bred “Calvinist” views like faith is a gift of God”) out of reverting back to his former views of Manichaeanism, Gnosticism and other forms of “paganism.”

On page 56, he wrote: “About 405 CE, Augustine admitted that he did not know why infant baptism was practiced.” 

In the footnote for that, Wilson said,  

“Augustine, an.quant.80: "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.’”

The writing Wilson quoted from Augustine was an.quant. which was written in 386/7 AD, a year after Augustine coming to faith, not almost two decades after that. So right off the bat, Wilson is presenting false information. And he knew it, too, since his dissertation book Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will” page 96 referred to that writing as in 386/7 AD.

And that is besides the fact the quote he have from Augustine does not say what Wilson wanted him to say. The church father didn’t even use the word baptism. But if Wilson wants to claim consecrate referred to in the quote meant baptism, then he defeated his own claim that Augustine had no explanation for infant baptism, since that explanation would be to consecrate (or save) the infant.

Wilson used this false claim to push these ideas on page 97:

“Prior to 412 CE, even Augustine had viewed baptism as unnecessary for salvation and infant baptism had no explanation.”

(By the way, he pushed the same false claim in page 304 in his longer dissertation book that in 400 AD, Augustine didn’t know why infant baptism was practiced.)

Both the claim that 1) Augustine (and prior fathers) rejected baptism is necessary to salvation and 2) had no explanation for infant baptism are false. As a side note, Wilson claimed to Flowers in his interview that until 412, no one, not even Augustine, knew why infant baptism was practiced at the 7:40 minute mark of this video:

https://youtu.be/BnOMORGM2Qw

The same book he pushed this lie actually refuted that lie. On page 42, Wilson wrote, “About 404 CE, Augustine praised the faith of the thief on the cross as sufficient for salvation without water baptism (Bapt.4.29–30). 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).”

Granted, though what Wilson claimed was a distortion there (Augustine didn’t treat infant baptism as baby dedication like many modern evangelicals do baby waterless dedications), but for the sake of the argument, let’s assume he was right (ignoring early Augustine’s salvation theme on it). That meant Augustine nevertheless prior to 412 AD had at least one explanation for infant baptism. That’s not to mention, 404 AD is prior to 405 AD (if we go by that bogus date Wilson gave for a 386/7 AD writing by Augustine).

So which is it, Wilson? Augustine had no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD? Or he had an explanation for infant baptism in 404 AD which was prior to 412 AD (or 405 AD false dating of a writing that did not say what Wilson wanted it to say)?

For the sake of accuracy, let’s show what Augustine actually said in 404 AD writing.

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.”

There’s more. On page 76, Wilson wrote,

“Before 412 CE, Augustine cited it similarly (e.g., Conf.1.7; Enar. Ps.51.10). His early use follows the Jewish and early Christian interpretation that "(Ps.51:7; 50:7), merely means that everyone born of a woman becomes a sinner in this world, without fail."[147] Augustine's more Manichaean interpretation (babies are born damned from Adam's sin) first appears in 412 CE in Pecc. merit.1.34 and 3.13 (alongside Job 14:4 supporting infant baptism and infant participation in the Eucharist).”

Take note that by Wilson’s own admission, Augustine’s Psalm 51.10 exposition was prior to 412 AD. What Wilson didn’t tell you was Augustine giving an explanation for why infant baptism was practiced, saying infants are born guilty of sin from Adam and need baptism for their forgiveness. So in other words, the very views Wilson claimed were Manichaean novelties from 412 AD onwards out of Augustine, appeared in Augustine’s writing that by his own admission was prior to 412 AD (and his debate with the Pelagians). That’s not to mention Augustine not only had an explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD, but contrary to what Wilson claimed, treated baptism as necessary to salvation prior to 412 AD as well.

Here’s what pre-412 AD Augustine wrote in that writing:

“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.”

So Augustine well even before his 412 AD knew why infant baptism was being practiced and was not shy in saying it was done to save and forgive the infant. Yet Wilson in his interview with Flowers claimed that Augustine made such ideas up in 412 AD to justify infant baptism against Pelagius since 1) Pelagius was essentially Baptist who held to believer’s baptism and one needs to be old enough to make choice to be reborn and 2) Augustine didn’t know until then why infant baptism was practiced.

As pointed out above, the latter claim is totally untrue, and Wilson knew it was untrue. The first claim (on Pelagius being essentially Southern Baptist) was also untrue, and Wilson knew that as well.  On page 210 of his longer dissertation book, Wilson wrote that Pelagius and Julian approved of infant baptism.

So as in regards to whether Augustine had an explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD or not, Wilson’s story in regards to whether or not Pelagius and his allies affirmed infant baptism changes when convenient.

Augustine even acknowledged the Pelagians affirmed infant baptism for entrance into the kingdom of God (per John 3:5 refuting the lie that post-411 AD Augustine originated baptismal view of it) in his On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book I) while pointing they were being inconsistent with their denials of original sin in doing so:

“Chapter 58 [XXX.]— In What Respect the Pelagians Regarded Baptism as Necessary for Infants.

“Let us now examine more carefully, so far as the Lord enables us, that very chapter of the Gospel where He says, Unless a man be born again — of water and the Spirit — he shall not enter into the kingdom of God. If it were not for the authority which this sentence has with them, they would not be of opinion that infants ought to be baptized at all. This is their comment on the passage: Because He does not say, 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not have salvation or eternal life,' but He merely said, 'he shall not enter into the kingdom of God,' therefore infants are to be baptized, in order that they may be with Christ in the kingdom of God, where they will not be unless they are baptized. Should infants die, however, even without baptism, they will have salvation and eternal life, seeing that they are bound with no fetter of sin. Now in such a statement as this, the first thing that strikes one is, that they never explain where the justice is of separating from the kingdom of God that image of God which has no sin. Next, we ought to see whether the Lord Jesus, the one only good Teacher, has not in this very passage of the Gospel intimated, and indeed shown us, that it only comes to pass through the remission of their sins that baptized persons reach the kingdom of God; although to persons of a right understanding, the words, as they stand in the passage, ought to be sufficiently explicit: Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God; John 3:3 and: Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 For why should he be born again, unless to be renewed? From what is he to be renewed, if not from some old condition? From what old condition, but that in which our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed? Romans 6:6 Or whence comes it to pass that the image of God enters not into the kingdom of God, unless it be that the impediment of sin prevents it? However, let us (as we said before) see, as earnestly and diligently as we are able, what is the entire context of this passage of the Gospel, on the point in question.”

Wilson did the same thing with pre-Augustine fathers as well. Remember, Wilson on page 97 (and even more explicitly in his interview with Flowers) claimed Augustine and other fathers had no idea why infant baptism was practiced and denied baptismal salvation. My previous article refuted the latter claim by citing fathers on John 3:5 and pointing out they to the man saw it as baptismal salvation requirement. For the sake of space, I refer people to that here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/06/lead-augustine-scholar-ken-wilson-using.html?m=1

Here, we will deal with his claim that no one prior to 412 AD knew why infant baptism was done. Besides the pre-412 AD Augustine writings mentioned above, take Cyprian, for example. On page 90 of his longer dissertation book, Wilson listed Cyprian’s ten different reasons for infant baptism. While omitting statements from Cyprian on Adam’s sins, as to what sins infants are forgiven for in baptism and on baptizing infants as soon as possible after birth  to see that none are lost (to accuse Augustine of originating such views out of Manichaeanism and Gnosticism), just mention of these showed Wilson knew that the claim no one prior to 412 AD knew why infant baptism was practiced was a lie he told in his shorter book and in his interview with Flowers. (Ironically one of the reasons he did list from Cyprian for infant baptism- receiving forgiveness of sins- refuted his claim on page 167 that Augustine originated the idea of infants receiving forgiveness of sins in baptism.)

On page 248 of his longer dissertation book, he wrote of earlier Augustine and earlier fathers on infant baptism: 

“This follows Origen and Ambrose in traditional paedobaptism for an unclean (blood?) stain at birth (Enar. Ps. 51.10).” 

Taking aside the fact as the quotes posted earlier in the article from early Augustine’s Psalm 51.10 exposition showed Wilson’s claim was false in denying he held to prior 412 AD the forgiveness of sins inherited from Adam for infants in baptism, even assuming these statements are true showed that Wilson was not telling the truth when he claimed nobody, not even Augustine, prior to 412 AD knew why infant baptism was practiced.

The fact of the matter is that contrary to Wilson’s distortions, all three held to infant baptism remits sins that infants were born with.

In the Homily on Leviticus 8.3, Origen said,

“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.”

Augustine’s mentor and bishop of Milan, Ambrose, 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.”

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.”

As stated though, even if we disregard all these statements and go by what Wilson said on Origen, Ambrose and early Augustine in his longer dissertation book, his claim in Foundation and to Flowers that no one knew why infant baptism was done prior to 412 AD is debunked by his own words in his dissertation. 

Another case of Wilson changing his story when it suits him.

But with these quotes from these fathers, it debunked his claim that original sin guilt and infant baptismal salvation to forgive them originated from Augustine out of Manichaeanism and Gnosticism.

And if Wilson wanted to argue, the foundations of Calvinism are these views, then going by true facts of history, Calvinism would be rooted deep in church history from fathers long before Augustine.

Obviously, we aren’t Calvinists here but the smears against Augustine go far beyond them since Augustine’s views on infant baptismal salvation, final perseverance of the elect and losable regeneration after baptism were far closer to us Lutherans than Calvinists.

Here we stand.

“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-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: holding to traditional free choice theology requires rejecting John 3:5 as baptismal salvation text.

In that case, if we go by, 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.”

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 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 Homily 5 on Romans 5: “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: “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.

an antidote to the silly Jim Cameron doc

Granted what is written below is not about so-called documentary, but predates it. But the criticisms made about skeptics apply to the nonsense that is the James Cameron project (which absurdly claims it found tomb of Jesus and His family, with claims that there are DNA proofs).

So here is an antidote from a website I found with excerpts from Anne Rice's recent book:

http://7lies.org/annerice.htm

Taking The Jesus Skeptics Seriously
Having started with the skeptical critics, those who take their cue from the earliest skeptical New Testament scholars of the Enlightenment, I expected to discover that their arguments would be frighteningly strong, and that Christianity was, at heart, a kind of fraud. I’d have to end up compartmentalizing my mind with faith in one part of it, and truth in another.
And what would I write about my Jesus? I had no idea. But the prospects were interesting. Surely he was a liberal, married, had children, was a homosexual, and who knew what? But I must do my research before I wrote one word.
These skeptical scholars seemed so very sure of themselves. They built their books on certain assertions without even examining these assertions. How could they be wrong? The Jewish scholars presented their case with such care. Certainly Jesus was simply and observant Jew or a Hasid who got crucified. End of story.
I read and I read and I read. Sometimes I thought I was walking through the valley of the shadow of Death, as I read. But I went on, ready to risk everything. I had to know who Jesus was—that is, if anyone knew, I had to know what that person knew.
Now, I couldn’t read the ancient languages, but as a scholar I can certainly follow the logic of an argument; I can check the footnotes, and the bibliographical references; I can go to the biblical text in English. I can check all the translations I have and I have every one of which I know from Wycliffe to Lamsa, including the New Annotated Oxford Bible and the old English King James which I love. I have the old Catholic translation, and every literary translation I can find. I have offbeat translations scholars don’t mention, such as that by Barnstone and Schonfield. I acquired every single translation for the light it might shed on an obscure line.
Skeptical Arguments: Some of the Worst and Most Biased Scholarship
What gradually came clear to me was that many of the skeptical arguments—arguments that insisted most of the Gospels were suspect, for instance, or written too late to be eyewitness accounts—lacked coherence. They were not elegant. Arguments about Jesus himself were full of conjecture. Some books were no more than assumptions piled upon assumptions. Absurd conclusions were reached on the basis of little or no data at all.
In sum, the whole case for the nondivine Jesus who stumbled into Jerusalem and somehow got crucified by nobody and had nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and would be horrified by it if hew knew about it—that the whole picture which has floated in the liberal circles I frequented as an atheist for thirty years—that case was not made. Not only was it not made. I discovered in this field some of the worst and most biased scholarship I’d ever read.
I saw almost no skeptical scholarship that was convincing, and the Gospels, shredded by critics, lost all intensity when reconstructed by various theorists. They were in no way compelling when treated as composites and records of later ”communities.”
Contempt for Jesus & the Sneer of Secularism
I was unconvinced by the wild postulations of those who claimed to be children of the Enlightenment. And I had also sensed something else. Many of these scholars, scholars who apparently devoted their life to New Testament scholarship, disliked Jesus Christ. Some pitied him as a hopeless failure. Others sneered at him, and some felt an outright contempt. This came between the lines of the books. This emerged in the personality of the texts.
I’d never come across this kind of emotion in any other field of research, at least not to this extent. It was puzzling.
The people who go into Elizabethan studies don’t set out to prove that Queen Elizabeth I was a fool. They don’t personally dislike her. They don’t make snickering remarks about her, or spend their careers trying to pick apart her historical reputation.
They approach her in other ways. They don’t even apply this sort of dislike or suspicion or contempt to other Elizabethan figures. If they do, the person is usually no the focus of the study. Occasionally a scholar studies a villain, yes. But even then, the author generally ends up arguing for the good points of a villain or for his or her place in history, or for some mitigating circumstance, that redeems the study itself. People studying disasters in history may be highly critical of the rulers or the milieu at the time, yes. But in general scholars don’t spend their lives in the company of historical figures whom they openly despise.
But there are New Testament scholars who detest and despise Jesus Christ. Of course, we all benefit from freedom in the academic community; we benefit from the enormous size of biblical studies today and the great range of contributions that are being made. I’m not arguing for censorship. But maybe I’m arguing for sensitivity—on the part of those who read these books. Maybe I’m arguing for a little wariness when it comes to the field in general. What looks like solid ground might not be solid ground at all.
The Gospels: Written Long After The Fact?
Another point bothered me a great deal.
All these skeptics insisted that the Gospels were late documents, that the prophecies in them had been written after the Fall of Jerusalem. But the more I read about the Fall of Jerusalem, the more I couldn’t understand this.
The Fall of Jerusalem was horrific, and involved an enormous and cataclysmic war, a war that went on and on for years in Palestine, followed by other revolts and persecutions, and punitive laws. As I read about this in the pages of S.G.F. Brandon, and in Josephus, I found myself amazed by the details of this appalling disaster in which the greatest Temple of the ancient world was forever destroyed.
I had never truly confronted these events before, never tried to comprehend them. And now I found it absolutely impossible that the Gospel writers could not have included the Fall of the Temple in their work had they written after it as critics insist.
It simply didn’t and doesn’t make sense.
These Gospel writers were in a Judeo-Christian cult. That’s what Christianity was. And the core story of Judaism has to do with redemption from Egypt, and redemption from Babylon. And before redemption from Babylon there was a Fall of Jerusalem in which the Jews were taken to Babylon. And here we have this horrible war.
Would Christian writers not have written about it had they seen it? Would they not have seen in the Fall of Jerusalem some echo of the Babylonian conquest? Of course they would have. They were writing for Jews and Gentiles.
The way the skeptics put this issue aside, they simply assumed the Gospels were late documents because of these prophecies in the Gospels. This does not begin to convince.
2000-Year Embarrassment
Before I leave this question of the Jewish War and the Fall of the Temple, let me make this suggestion, When Jewish and Christian scholars begin to take this war seriously, when they begin to really study what happened during the terrible years of the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the revolts that continued in Palestine right up through Bar Kokhba, when they focus upon the persecution of Christians in Palestine by Jews; upon the civil war in Rome in the ‘60s which Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., so well describes in his work Before Jerusalem Fell; as well as the persecution of Jews in the Diaspora during this period—in sum, when all of this dark era is brought into the light of examination—Bible studies will change.
Right now, scholars neglect or ignore the realities of this period. To some it seems a two-thousand-year-old embarrassment and I’m not sure I understand why.
But I am convinced that the key to understanding the Gospels is that hey were written before all this ever happened. That’s why they were preserved without question thought the contradicted one another. They came from a time that was, for later Christians, catastrophically lost forever.
Notable Jesus Scholars
As I continued my quest, I discovered a scholarship quite different from that of the skeptics—that of John A.T. Robinson, in The Priority of John. In reading his descriptions, which took seriously the words of the Gospel itself, I saw what was happening to Jesus in the text of John.
It was a turning point. I was able to enter the Fourth Gospel, and see Jesus alive and moving. And what eventually emerged for me from the Gospels was their unique coherence, their personalities—the inevitable stamp of individual authorship.
Of course John A.T. Robinson made the case for an early date for the Gospels far better that I ever could. He made it brilliantly in 1975, and he took to task the liberal scholars for their assumptions then in Redating the New Testament, but what he said is as true now as it was when he wrote those words.
After Robinson I made many great discoveries, among them Richard Bauckham who in The Gospels for All Christians soundly refutes the idea that isolated communities produced the Gospels and shows what is obvious, that they were written to be circulated and read by all.
The work of Martin Hengel is brilliant in clearing away assumptions, and his achievements are enormous, I continue to study him.
The scholar who has given me perhaps some of my most important insights and who continues to do so through his enormous output is N. T. Wright. N. T. Wright is one of the most brilliant writers I’ve ever read, and his generosity in embracing the skeptics and commenting on their arguments is an inspiration. His faith is immense, and his knowledge vast.
In his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, he answers solidly the question that has haunted me all my life. Christianity achieved what it did, according to N. T. Wright, because Jesus rose from the dead. It was the fact of the resurrection that sent the apostles out into the world with the force necessary to create Christianity. Nothing else would have done it but that.
Wright does a great deal more to put the entire question into historical perspective. How can I do justice to him here? I can only recommend him without reservation, and go on studying him.
Of course my quest is not over. There are thousands of pages of the above-mentioned scholars to be read and reread.
But I see now a great coherence to the life of Christ and the beginning of Christianity that eluded me before, and I see also the subtle transformation of the ancient world because of its economic stagnation and the assault upon it of the values of monotheism, Jewish values melded with Christian value, for which it was not perhaps prepared.
There are also theologians who must be studied, more of Teilhard de Chardin, and Rahner, and St. Augustine.
The Highest Task of the Modern Writer
Now somewhere during my journey through all of this, as I became disillusioned with the skeptics and with the flimsy evidence for their conclusions, I realized something about my book.
It was this. The challenge was to write about the Jesus of the Gospels, of course!
Anybody could write about a liberal Jesus, a married Jesus, a gay Jesus, a Jesus who was a rebel. The “Quest for the Historical Jesus” had become a joke because of all the many definitions it had ascribed to Jesus.
The true challenge was to take the Jesus of the Gospels, the Gospels which were becoming ever more coherent to me, the Gospels which appealed to me as elegant first-person witness, dictated to scribes no doubt, but definitely early, the Gospels produced before Jerusalem fell—to take the Jesus of the Gospels, and try to get inside him and imagine what he felt.
Then there were the legends—the Apocrypha—including the tantalizing tales in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas describing a boy Jesus who could strike a child dead, bring another to life, turn clay birds into living creatures, and perform other miracles. I’d stumbled on them very early in my research, in multiple editions, and never forgotten them. And neither had the world. They were fanciful, some of them humorous, extreme to be sure, but they had lived on into the Middle Ages, and beyond. I couldn’t get these legends out of my mind.
Ultimately I chose to embrace this material, to enclose it within the canonical framework as best I could. I felt there was a deep truth in it, and I wanted to preserve that truth as it spoke to me. Of course that is an assumption. But I made it. And perhaps in assuming that Jesus did manifest supernatural powers at an early age I am somehow being true to the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon, that Jesus was God and Man at all times.
I am certainly trying to e true to Paul when se said that Our Lord emptied himself for us, in that my character has emptied himself of his Divine awareness in order to suffer as a human being.
This is a book I offer to all Christian—to the fundamentalists, to the Roman Catholics, to the most liberal Christians in the hope that my embrace of more conservative doctrines will have some coherence for them in the here and now of the book. I offer it to scholars in the hope that they will perhaps enjoy seeing the evidence of the research that’s gone into it, and of course I offer it to those whom I so greatly admire who have been my teachers though I’ve never met them and probably never will.
I offer this book to those who know nothing of Jesus Christ in the hope that you will see him in these pages in some form. I offer this novel with love to my readers who’ve followed me through one strange turn after another in the hope that Jesus will be as real to you as any other character I’ve ever launched into the world we share.
After all, is Christ Our Lord not the ultimate supernatural hero, the ultimate outsider, the ultimate immortal of them all?
As for my son, this novel is dedicated to him. That says it all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journey from Atheism to Faith
When this novel was published in 2005, I had no idea that the Author’s Note, especially the story of my own personal return to faith, would prove of such interest to readers, and that I would receive so many questions about the various points that I raised about belief, about the gospels, and about the source materials of this book. It’s been suggested that I write a work entirely about my own journey to Christ and I am considering this. But for now I want to address some of the questions which are still coming from readers today.
I returned to faith in Christ, and to the Roman Catholic Church on December 6, 1998. It was after a long struggle of many years during which I went from being a committed atheist, grieving for a lost faith which I thought was gone forever, to realizing that I not only believed in Jesus Christ with my whole heart, but that I felt an overwhelming love for Him, and wanted to be united with Him both in private and in public through attendance at church.
The process for me had been gradual and somewhat intellectual. I’d lost faith in atheism. It no longer made sense. I wanted to affirm the presence of God because I felt it. Yet I was tormented by a multitude of theological questions and social issues that I couldn’t resolve. No matter how strongly I believed in God I still considered myself a conscientious humanist. How, I asked myself, could I express the love for God that I felt by becoming a member of a community of believers when I didn’t know what I thought about the literal truth of Adam or Eve or Original Sin?
How could I join with fellow believers who thought my gay son was going to Hell? How could I become connected with Christians who held that there was no evidence for Darwinian evolution, or that women should not have control over their own bodies? How could I affirm my belief in a faith that was itself so characterized by argument and strife?
Well, what happened to me on that Sunday that I returned to faith was this: I received a glimpse in to what I can only call the Infinite Mercy of God. It worked something like this. I realized that none of my theological or social questions really made any difference. I didn’t have to know the answers to these questions precisely because God did.
He was the God who made the Universe in which I existed. That meant he had made the Big Bang, He had made DNA, He had made the Black Holes in space, and the wind and the rains and the individual snowflakes that fall from the sky. He had done all that. So surely He could do virtually anything and He could solve virtually everything.
And how could I possibly know what He knew? And why should I remain apart from Him because I could not grasp all that He could grasp? What came over me then was an infinite trust, trust in His power and His love, I didn’t have to worry about the ultimate fate of my good atheistic friends, gay or straight, because He knew all about them, and He was holding them in His hands.
I didn’t have to quake alone in terror at the thought of those who die untimely deaths from illness, or the countless millions destroyed in the horrors of war. He knew all about them. He had always been holding them in His hands.
He and only He knew the full story of every person who’d ever lived or would live; He and He alone knew what person was given what choice, what chance, what opportunity, what amount of time, to come to Him and by what path.
That I couldn’t possibly know all was as clear to me as my awareness that He did.
Faith Does Not Negate Reason or Exploration
Now this was not totally understandable to me in words at that time. I couldn’t have explained it in this way then. But it is essentially what happened: faith became absolutely real to me; and its implications became real. I found myself in a realm in which the beauty I saw around me was intimately connected in every way with the justice, the wisdom, the mercy and the love of God.
Did this mean that I thought doctrine and principles didn’t matter? No. Did it mean I thought everything was relative? Certainly not. Did it mean I did not continue to ponder a multitude of ideas? God forbid. What it did mean was that I put myself in the hands of God entirely and that my faith would light the pages I read in the Book of Life from then on.
Now why did this happen to me? Why did this love and trust fill my heart at that particular moment in time? The honest answer is: I don’t know. Had I prayed for faith? Yes. Had I searched for it? Yes. But faith is a gift, and it was a gift I received on that day.
Over the next few years, my conviction and my awareness of God’s love deepened; and no matter what crisis or dilemma I confronted, that trust in the power of the Lord remained.
In the summer of 2002, as I’ve explained above, I consecrated my work to Christ, but I really didn’t make good on my promise to work only for Him until December of that year. From that time on, I have been committed to writing the life of Our Lord in fictional form.
At the time that I began this work, I had no idea that my life would be transformed by this task, that the anxiety I took for granted as part of life before 2002 would almost entirely disappear. In fact, had anyone told me this was going to happen, I wouldn’t have believed such a thing. But my life has been completely changed.
Now what happened in 2002 was this: I was praying, I was talking to the Lord, I was discussing my writing with Him, and what came over me was the awareness that if I believed in Him as completely as I said I did, I ought to write entirely for Him. Anything I could do ought to be for Him. I told Him so. I set out to put this into practice.
As I said, I didn’t succeed to full commitment until December of that year. But the day when I told the Lord I’d write for Him, and Him only, I now see as the most important single day of my entire life. Truly not the simplest things have been the same since. I am united in mind and body as never before. In fact it seems that every aspect of my life has been brought into a coherence that I’d never expected to see.
My early religious education, my long quest, my many experiences both dramatic and trivial, my losses, my developing writing skills, my research skills—all are united now in one single goal. There is a feeling in me at times that nothing, no matter how small, that I experienced has been lost. And of course I wonder if it isn’t this way with every human being; it’s jus that most of us can’t see it most of the time.
There is much more I can say about my journey to conversion but I think this gives the emotional picture which is lacking above. Finally, allow me to say this about the crafting of a novel about Our Lord.
As Christians, I feel most of us in the creative community must seek to be more than scribes. If Diarmaid MacColloch is right in his immense history, The Reformation, we had plenty of Christian scribes on the eve of that enormous and painful upheaval.
But it was the printing press that enabled the great thinkers of that time, both Reformer and Catholic, to transform our “assumptions about knowledge and originality of thought.” I suggest now that we must seize the revolutionary media of our age in the way that those earlier Christian and Catholics seized the printed book. We must truly use the realistic novel, the television drama, and the motion picture to tell the Christian story anew.
It is our obligation to tell that story over and over and to use the best means that we have.
In that spirit this novel was written—with the hope of exploring and celebrating the mystery of the Hypostatic Union as well as the mystery of the Incarnation—in a wholly fresh way.
But we, O Lord, behold we are Thy little flock; possess us as Thine, stretch thy wings over us, and let us fly under them. Be thou our glory. -St. Augustine

Anne O'Brien Rice July 12, 2006

what is the gospel and how should it be preached?

I will have this as an open forum to all Christians and let them state their own views on how the gospel should be preached, and what the message should be.

Reformed site distorts historical Lutheran view on holidays

This site has a view of Regulative Principle, which is not the view of many Reformed either, so its condemnations is not just at today's Lutherans but also at fellow Reformed as well.

The site reads:

http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/truwrshp.htm

"It is well known that most Lutherans have always retained as part of their service to God both the Lord's day instituted by Christ as well as most of the major "holy days" instituted by the Papists. The practice is inconsistent with the principles laid down in the Formula of Concord which asserts, 'We believe, teach, and confess that in time of persecution, when a plain [and steadfast] confession is required of us, we should not yield to the enemies in regard to such adiaphora, as the apostle has written Gal. 5,1: Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage. Also 2 Cor. 6,14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, etc. For what concord hath light with darkness? Also Gal. 2,5: To whom we gave place, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you. For in such a case it is no longer a question concerning adiaphora, but concerning the truth of the Gospel, concerning [preserving] Christian liberty, and concerning sanctioning open idolatry, as also concerning the prevention of offense to the weak in the faith [how care should be taken lest idolatry be openly sanctioned and the weak in faith be offended]; in which we have nothing to concede, but should plainly confess and suffer on that account what God sends, and what He allows the enemies of His Word to inflict upon us.'

"Here, in the Epitome's fourth affirmation in chapter 10, we have a clear affirmation that when the enemy of the Gospel has commanded an observation as moral duty, sinful to neglect, the Christian should STAND FAST in the liberty wherewith Christ has made him free, by defending his Christian Liberty through an open dissent from that practice or profession imposed by the enemies of the Gospel. Certain it is that the entire liturgical year, with Christ-Mass, Ishtar, Good-friday, &c. is all one big idolatrous chain of bondage imposed by no authority but that of Antichrist."


Here we see the article actually claiming the Lutheran Book of Concord denouncing celebrations of Christmas, Easter, etc., as practices of the antichrist. It takes a statement about Christian liberty and turned it into what the Book of Concord does NOT say- and that is that Christians are not at liberty to celebrate such days. Yes, the site does say Christians are to defend their liberty by OPEN DISSENT against these practices. But to the Book of Concord, that is precisely antithesis to Christian liberty. The Book of Concord was stating that Christians are at liberty to not celebrate these days even when those in authority demand they practice those days. It does not say celebrating them means submitting to the authority of the antichrist.

Here are other statements that show the Book of Concord (cited particularly from Epitome):

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.html#X.%20Church%20Rites

"4] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in such manner as may be most useful and edifying to the congregation of God. "

Here is the statement in that same context that shows indeed that congregations can practice these ceremonies as long as they are useful and edifying. More we also see the Book of Concord states:

"7] 5. We believe, teach, and confess also that no Church should condemn another because one has less or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other, if otherwise there is agreement among them in doctrine and all its articles, as also in the right use of the holy Sacraments, according to the well-known saying: Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei, Disagreement in fasting does not destroy agreement in faith. "

These is the very statement that came after what the Reformed article cited from the Book of Concord in claiming Lutherans today are not following the Book of Concord since they celebrate holidays like Christmas. Yet, here, the Reformed article is doing the very thing the Book of Concord said NOT to do- that is to condemn another church for having external ceremonies not commanded by God. I would suggest it is the Reformed article that is not keeping with the principle of the Book of Concord.

As pointed out, what is cited by the Reformed article is a statement about Christians are at liberty to celebrate or not celebrate the holidays in question. If it becomes a matter of these holidays being turned as required commandment/law or twisted to become the gospel in itself, Lutherans are to oppose being forced to celebrate them. But they are not to condemn others who do celebrate them as long as it is done out of principle of Christian liberty. That is in following with what the Augsburg Confession not only said about Christmas and Easter, but also Sunday which ironically the Reformed themselves, regardless of whether they follow the regulative principle or not, keep.

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY TO ALL

On Oct. 31, 1517, Luther gave us the 95 theses, that would start the Reformation.So to those who share in our Reformation heritage of grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, Scriptures alone, I salute you all.

this thread is devoted to Q and A on Lutheranism

Anyone can feel free to ask away!

The gospel

Christ died at the cross to provide redemption for all. He died to reconcile God to all. He died for the sins of all, taking all their sins on the cross, such that God forgive the sins of all those He died for. He became Mediator between God and all. He was atoning sacrifice for all. He gave His life because of God's love for all and His desire to save all.Forgiveness of sins on that basis is thus to be preached to all. We can say to the lost, "your sins are forgiven."They need to hear that for them to have faith in the message that is preached to them: Christ died for your sins, too. You are forgiven. God loves you. He is not angry with you, but He is lovingly asking you to come to faith and repentance. He is reconciled to you. Be reconciled to Him, that you may by faith, receive what Christ has earned for you at the cross- forgiveness of sins, justification, and eternal life. He has merited satisfaction for your sins. Receive Him this day, to know that you may receive justification by faith alone in Christ- that justification that Christ provided for you at the cross. And that you may receive forgiveness of sins that have been obtained for you. Believe in Him who died for you, that you may have eternal life.Amen.

Virgin Mary = mother of God

An article on my denomination website:

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuQA_qaID=1&cuTopic_topicID=7&cuItem_itemID=9871

There were some who were willing only to call Mary "Christotokos" (Greek for "the one who bore Christ"), but they were unwilling to call her "Theotokos" (Greek for "the one who bore God"). On the basis of Scripture, the church learned to affirm that the Christian could call Mary both names.From the moment of his conception in the body of Mary, Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man in one person. At the moment of his conception "the Word" (John's inspired name for the second person of the Trinity) "became flesh" so that he might "live for a while among us" (John 1:17). From that moment, and now for all eternity, what Paul says in Colossians 2:9 is true, "In Christ, all the fullness of the deity lives in bodily form." From the moment of his conception, wherever the human nature of Jesus is, there also is the nature of the Second Person of the Trinity, and wherever that nature of the Second Person of the Trinity is, there is also the human nature. From the womb of Mary, to his birth, to the cross, Scripture never allows us to separate Jesus as if sometimes he was only man and sometimes he was only God. He was and is always the "God-man" in one person. It is just that he possesses both a human and a divine nature in that one person. That is why the angel could say to the shepherds on that first Christmas, "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). Clearly, Mary gave birth to him who is the Lord himself! The incarnation (taking on of a human nature) of the Second Person of the Trinity is truly the greatest miracle in the history of the world! Now, of course, that presents us with the logical problem you mentioned in your question. Since God is three persons and yet one God, wouldn't that mean that Mary thus becomes the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit as well? Here is one of those many places in Scripture where we humbly bow before a mystery that goes beyond our understanding. How the Son of God, eternally one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, could become incarnate without the Father and the Spirit becoming incarnate at the same time goes way beyond our explanation. But it is clear from Scripture that only the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, the Son of God, is the one who takes on flesh and blood in the womb of the the Virgin Mary.

Lutheran Epitome of Formula of Concord on conversion

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.html#II.%20Free%20Will.

17] But, on the other hand, it is correctly said that in conversion God, through the drawing of the Holy Ghost, makes out of stubborn and unwilling men willing ones, and that after such conversion in the daily exercise of repentance the regenerate will of man is not idle, but also cooperates in all the works of the Holy Ghost, which He performs through us.

18] 9. Also what Dr. Luther has written, namely, that man's will in his conversion is pure passive, that is, that it does nothing whatever, is to be understood respectu divinae gratiae in accendendis novis motibus, that is, when God's Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man's will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion. For when [after] the Holy Ghost has wrought and accomplished this, and man's will has been changed and renewed by His divine power and working alone, then the new will of man is an instrument and organ of God the Holy Ghost, so that he not only accepts grace, but also cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the works which follow.

19] Therefore, before the conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it.

My denom statement on fellowship

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=795&contentID=4442&shortcutID=5292

Church fellowship is every joint expression, manifestation, and demonstration of the common faith in which Christians on the basis of their confession find themselves to be united with one another.

How Scripture leads us to this concept of church fellowship.


Through faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit unites us with our God and Savior. Gal 3:26; 4:6; 1 Jn 3:1.
This Spirit-wrought faith at the same time unites us in an intimate bond with all other believers. 1 Jn 1:3; Eph 4:4-6; Jn 17:20,21. Compare also the many striking metaphors emphasizing the unity of the Church, e.g., the body of Christ, the temple of God.
Faith as spiritual life invariably expresses itself in activity which is spiritual in nature, yet outwardly manifest, e.g., in the use of the means of grace, in prayer, in praise and worship, in appreciative use of the “gifts” of the Lord to the Church, in Christian testimony, in furthering the cause of the gospel, and in deeds of Christian love. Jn 8:47; Gal 4:6; Eph 4:11-14; Ac 4:20; 2 Co 4:13; 1 Pe 2:9; Gal 2:9; 5:6.
It is God the Holy Ghost who leads us to express and manifest in activity the faith which He works and sustains in our hearts through the gospel. Gal 4:6; Jn 15:26,27; 7:38,39; Ac 1:8; Eph 2:10.
Through the bond of faith in which He unites us with all Christians, the Holy Spirit also leads us to express and manifest our faith jointly with fellow Christians according to opportunity: as smaller and larger groups, Ac 1:14,15; 2:41-47; Gal 2:9; as congregations with other congregations, Ac 15; 1 Th 4:9,10; 2 Co 8:1,2,18,19; 9:2. (Before God every activity of our faith is at the same time fellowship activity in the communion of saints. 1 Co 12; Eph 4:1-16; Ro 12:1-8; 2 Ti 2:19.)
We may classify these joint expressions of faith in various ways according to the particular realm of activity in which they occur, e.g., pulpit fellowship; altar fellowship; prayer fellowship; fellowship in worship; fellowship in church work, in missions, in Christian education, and in Christian charity. Yet insofar as they are joint expressions of faith, they are all essentially one and the same thing and are all properly covered by a common designation, namely, church fellowship.2 Church fellowship should therefore be treated as a unit concept, covering every joint expression, manifestation, and demonstration of a common faith. Hence, Scripture can give the general admonition “avoid them” when church fellowship is to cease (Ro 16:17). Hence, Scripture sees an expression of church fellowship also in giving the right hand of fellowship (Gal 2:9) and in greeting one another with the fraternal kiss (Ro 16:16); on the other hand, it points out that a withholding ofchurch fellowship may also be indicated


What principles Scripture teaches for the exercise of such church fellowship.


In selecting specific individuals or groups for a joint expression of faith, we can do this only on the basis of their confession. It would be presumptuous on our part to attempt to recognize Christians on the basis of the personal faith in their hearts. 2 Ti 2:19; Ro 10:10; 1 Jn 4:1-3; 1 Sa 16:7.
A Christian confession of faith is in principle always a confession to the entire Word of God. The denial, adulteration, or suppression of any word of God does not stem from faith but from unbelief. Jn 8:31; Mt 5:19; 1 Pe 4:11; Jer 23:28,31; Dt 4:2; Rev 22:18,19. We recognize and acknowledge as Christian brethren those who profess faith in Christ as their Savior and with this profession embrace and accept His entire Word. Compare Walther’s “Theses on Open Questions,”3 Thesis 7: “No man has the privilege, and to no man may the privilege be granted, to believe and to teach otherwise than God has revealed in His Word, no matter whether it pertains to primary or secondary fundamental articles of faith, to fundamental or nonfundamental doctrines, to matters of faith or of practice, to historical items or other matters subject to the light of reason, to important or seemingly unimportant matters.”
Actually, however, the faith of Christians and its manifestations are marked by many imperfections, either in the grasp and understanding of scriptural truths, or in the matter of turning these truths to full account in their lives. We are all weak in one way or another. Php 3:12; Eph 4:14; 3:16-18; 1 Th 5:14; Heb 5:12; 1 Pe 2:2. Compare Walther’s Thesis 5: “The Church militant must indeed aim at and strive for absolute unity of faith and doctrine, but it never will attain a higherdegree of unity than a fundamental one.” Cf. Thesis 10.
Weakness of faith is in itself not a reason for terminating church fellowship, but rather an inducement for practicing it vigorously to help one another in overcoming our individual weaknesses. In precept and example, Scripture abounds with exhortations to pay our full debt of love toward the weak.


General exhortations. Gal 6:1-3; Eph 4:1-16; Mt 18:15-17.
Weakness in laying hold of God’s promises in a firm trust. Mt 6:25-34.
Weakness with reference to adiaphora in enjoying fully the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. Ro 14; 1 Co 8 and 9. The public confession of any church must [on the basis of Scripture] establish, however, which things are adiaphora, so that it may be evident who are the weak and who are the strong. Ro 14:17-23; 1 Co 6:12; 10:23,24.
Weakness in understanding God’s truth, and involvement in error. Ac 1:6; Galatians (Judaizing error); Colossians (Jewish-Gnostic error); 1 Co 15; 1 Th 4:10-12,14; 2 Th 3:6,14,15; Ac 15:5,6,22,25. Note how in all these cases, Paul patiently built up the weak faith of these Christians with the gospel to give them strength to overcome the error that had affected them. Compare Walther’s Theses 2, 3, 4, and 8.


Persistent adherence to false doctrine and practice calls for termination of church fellowship.


We cannot continue to recognize and treat anyone as a Christian brother who in spite of all brotherly admonition impenitently clings to a sin. His and our own spiritual welfare calls for termination of church fellowship (excommunication). Mt 18:17; 1 Co 5:1-6.
We can no longer recognize and treat as Christian brethren those who in spite of patient admonition persistently adhere to an error in doctrine or practice, demand recognition for their error, and make propaganda for it. Gal 1:8,9; 5:9; Mt 7:15-19; 16:6; 2 Ti 2:17-19; 2 Jn 9-11; Ro 16:17,18. If the error does not overthrow the foundation of saving faith, the termination of fellowship is not to be construed as an excommunication. Moreover, an excommunication can only apply to an individual, not to a congregation or larger church group. The “avoid them” of Romans 16:17,18 excludes any contact that would be an acknowledgment and manifestation of church fellowship; it calls for a cessation of every further joint expression of faith. Cf. 1 Co 5:9-11. Compare Walther’s Theses 9 and 10.
Those who practice church fellowship with persistent errorists are partakers of their evil deeds. 2 Jn 11.


From all of this, we see that in the matter of the outward expression of Christian fellowship, the exercise of church fellowship, particularly two Christian principles need to direct us: the great debt of love which the Lord would have us pay to the weak brother, and His clear injunction (also flowing out of love) to avoid those who adhere to false doctrine and practice and all who make themselves partakers of their evil deeds. Conscientious recognition of both principles will lead to an evangelical practice also in facing many difficult situations that confront us, situations which properly lie in the field of casuistry. On the basis of the foregoing, we find it to be an untenable position:


To distinguish between joint prayer which is acknowledged to be an expression of church fellowship and an occasional joint prayer which purports to be something short of church fellowship;
To designate certain nonfundamental doctrines as not being divisive of church fellowship in their very nature;
To envision fellowship relations (in a congregation, in a church body, in a church federation, in a church agency, in a cooperative church activity) like so many steps of a ladder, each requiring a gradually increasing or decreasing measure of unity in doctrine and practice.