“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.