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.
No comments:
Post a Comment