“Lead Augustine scholar” Ken Wilson using and abusing the early Augustine on John 3:5

One of the ways Ken Wilson pit early Augustine against later Augustine in regards to baptism was to claim Augustine changed his view of John 3:5 to make it about baptism later on in life. 

Consider what he wrote in Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will” in regards to later Augustine on John 3:5:

Page 167: “His argument reinterprets John 3:5 as water baptism instead of physical birth (“water breaking”) versus spiritual rebirth, contesting his accurate explanation of John 3:6 demonstrating flesh/flesh (physical) versus spirit/spirit birth (Gen. Litt.10.38).”

Page 174: “Augustine replies with his allegorized John 3:5, declaring water baptism as essential for salvation, even in sinless newborns. Therefore, Augustine must reverse his prior explanation of the thief’s salvation (Nat. orig.1.12). Faith no longer suffices; instead, baptism in blood (martyrdom) explains the thief’s salvation. When Vincentius points to the thief entering paradise without baptism, Augustine repeats his novel John 3:5 proof text.”

Page 187: “Objectively, the development of Augustine’s later theology in his treatises commences in 412 CE as he wrestles to explain the Church tradition of paeodobaptism (Pecc. merit. 1.67). He posits new doctrines based on his Stoic reinterpretation of the paedobaptismal tradition and his mistranslation of Rom. 5.12 with its corresponding inherited reatus, its index appearance in his massive corpus as a full scriptural citation. Water baptism now stands as essential for salvation through a reinterpreted John 3:5 when he previously denied it.”

Page 188: “He reverses his prior explanation of the thief’s exception (Nat. orig.1.12) and conjectures feral theories, after he alters John 3:5 from physical birth into water baptism.”

Page 244: “Augustine’s interpretation of John 2.23-25 exposes a developing preoccupation with John 3:5 as water baptism as he alters Jesus’ words.”

First off, zero church fathers, who commented on John 3:5, prior to Augustine denied that the text refers to baptismal requirement for salvation or rebirth. Wilson should know that since multiple sources, he referenced, such as Origen’s Romans 5.9 commentary and Ambrose’s On Abraham, 2.79 and On the Mysteries, all cite John 3:5 as baptismal requirement for rebirth (and both individuals held to it applies to infants as well). But we see nowhere is there any mention from Wilson in his book that prior fathers, who affirmed John 3:5, altered, reinterpreted, or gave allegorized view of John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism. We are left with the completely false impression that Augustine from 412 AD and afterwards made up the “novel” view of John 3:5 as baptism. It’s very deceptive.

Secondly, not only zero fathers did not hold to water in John 3:5 meant physical birth, but in fact, as pointed out in the article on the pre-Augustine fathers on John 3:5, it was the Docetist Gnostics who held to that view. As pointed out, in my earlier article, church father and martyr Hippolytus called them out on that. (Not to mention, multiple times in early church writings, such as Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 21, Tertullian’s On Baptism Chapter 1, and Tertullian’s Against Marcion, Book I, Chapter 28, different Gnostic groups were called out for their denials of baptism is regeneration.) So when Wilson wants to play novelty and Gnostic/Stoic/Manichaean cards on Augustine on John 3:5, it is really ironic since he is blatantly guilty of what he accused Augustine (holding novel views of passages that only Gnostics held to early on). 

Thirdly, early Augustine himself held to John 3:5 as baptismal salvation requirement. It was nothing something later Augustine made up or alter Jesus’ words or reinterpret it to mean baptism. It was not novel to him either when the later Augustine saw it as baptism since early Augustine affirmed the text meant baptism as well.

And this will be the central focus of this article. On page 120, Wilson wrote “In De baptismo, we find abundant proof of Augustine’s persistent traditional free choice theology.” Proof? He wrote next: “Salvation can occur without water baptism, demonstrating John 3:5 has not yet evolved into a proof text.”

Wilson claimed early Augustine’s On Baptism 2.19 denied John 3:5 was baptismal prooftext. Here’s what Augustine wrote in it:

“19. But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all, or to be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed, which is more repugnant and abhorrent to men's feelings; but when I have recourse to that divine balance, in which the weight of things is determined, not by man's feelings, but by the authority of God, I find a statement by our Lord on either side. For He said to Peter, ‘He who is washed has no need of washing a second time;’ and to Nicodemus, "Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5 What is the purport of the more secret determination of God, it is perhaps difficult for men like us to learn; but as far as the mere words are concerned, any one may see what a difference there is between ‘has no need of washing,’ and ‘cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The Church, lastly, herself holds as her tradition, that without baptism she cannot admit a man to her altar at all; but since it is allowed that one who has been rebaptized may be admitted after penance, surely this plainly proves that his baptism is considered valid. If, therefore, Cyprian thought that those whom he considered to be unbaptized yet had some share in pardon, in virtue of the bond of unity, the Lord has power to be reconciled even to the rebaptized by means of the simple bond of unity and peace, and by this same compensating power of peace to mitigate His displeasure against those by whom they were rebaptized, and to pardon all the errors which they had committed while in error, on their offering the sacrifice of charity, which covers the multitude of sins; so that He looks not to the number of those who have been wounded by their separation, but to the greater number who have been delivered from bondage by their return. For in the same bond of peace in which Cyprian conceived that, through the mercy of God, those whom he considered to have been admitted to the Church without baptism, were yet not severed from the gifts of the Church, we also believe that through the same mercy of God the rebaptized can earn their pardon at His hands.”

That’s actually Augustine was discussing John 3:5 in terms of baptismal requirement for salvation even back then. The fact he discussed Cyprian’s idea of those who were not validly baptized may still be saved via unity with the church does not change or alter that fact Augustine saw John 3:5 as baptism, not physical birth, then.

Then in On Baptism, Book IV, Augustine cited John 3:5 three times and saw as reference to baptismal rebirth requirement:

“29. With regard to the objection brought against Cyprian, that the catechumens who were seized in martyrdom, and slain for Christ's name's sake, received a crown even without baptism, I do not quite see what it has to do with the matter, unless, indeed, they urged that heretics could much more be admitted with baptism to Christ's kingdom, to which catechumens were admitted without it, since He Himself has said, ‘Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ John 3:5 Now, in this matter I do not hesitate for a moment to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with love for God, before the baptized heretic; nor yet do we thereby do dishonor to the sacrament of baptism which the latter has already received, the former not as yet; nor do we consider that the sacrament of the catechumen is to be preferred to the sacrament of baptism, when we acknowledge that some catechumens are better and more faithful than some baptized persons. For the centurion Cornelius, before baptism, was better than Simon, who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit; Acts 10:44 Simon, even after baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit. Cornelius, however, would have been convicted of contempt for so holy a sacrament, if, even after he had received the Holy Ghost, he had refused to be baptized. But when he was baptized, he received in no wise a better sacrament than Simon; but the different merits of the men were made manifest under the equal holiness of the same sacrament — so true is it that the good or ill deserving of the recipient does not increase or diminish the holiness of baptism. But as baptism is wanting to a good catechumen to his receiving the kingdom of heaven, so true conversion is wanting to a bad man though baptized. For He who said, ‘Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ said also Himself, "unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:20 For that the righteousness of the catechumens might not feel secure, it is written, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ And again, that the unrighteousness of the baptized might not feel secure because they had received baptism, it is written, ‘Unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The one were too little without the other; the two make perfect the heir of that inheritance. As, then, we ought not to depreciate a man's righteousness, which begins to exist before he is joined to the Church, as the righteousness of Cornelius began to exist before he was in the body of Christian men, — which righteousness was not thought worthless, or the angel would not have said to him, ‘Your prayers and your alms have come up as a memorial before God;’ nor did it yet suffice for his obtaining the kingdom of heaven, or he would not have been told to send to Peter, Acts 10:4-5 — so neither ought we to depreciate the sacrament of baptism, even though it has been received outside the Church. But since it is of no avail for salvation unless he who has baptism indeed in full perfection be incorporated into the Church, correcting also his own depravity, let us therefore correct the error of the heretics, that we may recognize what in them is not their own but Christ's.”

Wilson argued on page 120: “Had Augustine in ca. 401 believed in eternal damnation upon birth from Augustinian original sin he could not have written that an unbaptized person could win salvation through unity without baptism, or that a second baptism was bad as no baptism.”

Here, he offers no evidence that the later Augustine would entertained the idea of a second baptism being a valid baptism. The reason? He can’t. He manufactured that claim as “evidence” that Augustine denied baptismal salvation necessity and John 3:5 as prooftext to “prove” he held to “traditional free choice theology.” But as pointed out on one of my earlier articles, that would mean the entire early church before Augustine would be in denial of “traditional free choice theology” for affirming John 3:5 is prooftext of baptismal saving requirement.

And even the later Augustine allowed for salvation without baptism for those who desired it as adults through faith (baptism of desire). He wrote in his later writing, City of God, Book XIII Chapter 7: “For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism.  For He who said, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, John 3:5 made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven; Matthew 10:32 and in another place, Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. Matthew 16:25 And this explains the verse, Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. For what is more precious than a death by which a man's sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism.”

That puts the lie to the claim Wilson made on page 121 that early Augustine could not written those who have faith without getting a chance to be baptized if he held to Augustinian original sin: “Could Augustine have written such a ‘panegyric to the thief’s resounding power of personal faith for salvation (Bapt. 4:30) had he already believed in Augustinian original sin? Probably not, since in Retract. 2.18 he changes his mind and attempts a post-mortem baptism for this thief (cf. Bapt. 4.31).”

Note, Wilson referenced On Baptism, Book IV, where Augustine referenced John 3:5 multiple times as baptismal requirement for salvation, so there is nowhere he did not know the church father saw the text as baptism then. Arguing that later Augustine changed his views on the thief does not change the fact that early Augustine did not hold to John 3:5 as physical birth and hence the later Augustine did not then alter and change or re-interpret such text to mean baptism. It was always his view, whether early on or later on in the faith.

Earlier in the article, Wilson claimed later Augustine changed his view on how the thief was saved only after he altered and reinterpreted John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism. Note that when Wilson referred to the early Augustine writing, it was in the very contexts of Augustine treating John 3:5 as baptism for salvation. 

It is a wholesale revisionism and falsifying of church history to make it out like later Augustine was who altered and re-interpreted John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism when at no point did early Augustine or any fathers prior to him held to the text meant physical birth and not baptism, all to fit a narrative that free choice theology, that requires rejecting baptism was necessary to salvation view of John 3:5, was the view of the entire early church prior to Augustine. Contrary to Soteriology 101’s defense of Wilson by claiming baptism is not relevant issue to his thesis, Wilson made it about baptism as central to his arguments and claims.

As a side note, holding to baptism of martyrdom was not an invention Augustine made up to cover for his supposedly novelty of baptismal salvation necessity view of John 3:5. (An example prior to Augustine would be these words from Lecture 3 of Cyril of Jerusalem: “10. If any man receive not Baptism, he has not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can you drink the cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with Mark 10:38? And the Martyrs confess, by being made a spectacle unto the world, and to Angels, and to men 1 Corinthians 4:9; and you will soon confess:— but it is not yet the time for you to hear of this.”)

To close, let’s provide more quotes from early Augustine’s writings to show how he was baptismal salvation necessity advocate, including for infants, to the core:

Confessions, Book 9, Chapter 13:
“34. But — my heart being now healed of that wound, in so far as it could be convicted of a carnal Romans 8:7 affection — I pour out unto You, O our God, on behalf of that Your handmaid, tears of a far different sort, even that which flows from a spirit broken by the thoughts of the dangers of every soul that dies in Adam. And although she, having been made alive in Christ even before she was freed from the flesh had so lived as to praise Your name both by her faith and conversation, yet dare I not say that from the time You regenerated her by baptism, no word went forth from her mouth against Your precepts.”
Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, Chapter 35:
"78. Why do you reproach us by saying that men renewed in baptism ought no longer to beget children, or to possess fields, and houses, and money? Paul allows it. For, as cannot be denied, he wrote to believers, after recounting many kinds of evil-doers who shall not possess the kingdom of God: "And such were you," he says: "but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." By the washed and sanctified, no one, assuredly, will venture to think any are meant but believers, and those who have renounced this world."
Letter 23:

“4. If, then, it be indeed the case that, under the promptings of a devout and pious mind, you abstain from dispensing a second baptism, and rather accept the baptism of the Catholic Church as the act of the one true Mother, who to all nations both offers a welcome to her bosom, that they may be regenerated, and gives a mother's nourishment to them when they are regenerated, and as the token of admission into Christ's one possession.”
Letter 44:

“For perfect cleansing is by the baptism, not of John, but of the Lord, if the person receiving it be worthy; if, however, he be unworthy, the sacraments abide in him, not to his salvation, but to his perdition. When I was about to put these questions, Fortunius himself saw that he ought not to have mooted the subject of the baptism of the disciples of the Lord.”
On the Catechising of the Uninstructed, Chapter 20

“Thus, then, just as the earth through the agency of the flood was cleansed by the waters from the wickedness of the sinners, who in those times were destroyed in their inundation, while the righteous escaped by means of the wood; so the people of God, when they went forth from Egypt, found a way through the waters by which their enemies were devoured. Nor was the sacrament of the wood wanting there. For Moses smote with his rod, in order that that miracle might be effected. Both these are signs of holy baptism, by which the faithful pass into the new life, while their sins are done away with like enemies, and perish."
Of the Good of Marriage, 21

“For in baptism all sins are put away.”

Psalm 51.10 Exposition

“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.”

Here we stand.

“Lead Augustine scholar” Ken Wilson using and abusing the early Augustine on infant baptism

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.

“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.