“Leading Augustine scholar” Ken Wilson using and abusing the fathers up to later Augustine on original sin

 In order to defame Augustine, so-called leading  scholar on him, Ken Wilson claimed that he invented novel views of passages like John 3:5 and Psalm 51:5, especially when it came to infant baptismal regeneration as saving remedy to original sin, out of him reverting to his previous “pagan” views of Manichaeanism, Gnosticism, etc. As documented in previous blog posts, the claim that Augustine altered John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism as a result of going back to thoroughly pagan is wholly, extremely intellectually dishonest given the fact that 1) zero fathers prior to or after Augustine denied John 3:5 refers to  baptism (some fathers even used it as prooftext for infant baptismal regeneration prior to Augustine) and 2) only Docetist Gnostics then saw John 3:5 as physical birth, not baptism (besides them, Wilson’s view of John 3:5 is what’s very novel, not Augustine’s view).

Connected to this as discussed in prior blog posts is the doctrine of original sin as taught by Augustine and other fathers, which will be discussed in this blog post to show how Wilson also misrepresented fathers (including early Augustine) on passages like Psalm 51:5 to pit them against Augustine.

On page 160 of Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will”, Wilson wrote: 

“Augustine accurately depicts scripture’s assessment of all persons, even the most godly, as remaining sinners. But applying this to newborns, he reverses his prior teaching and insists on a novel (for Christians) interpretation of Job 14:4-5 (and Ps.51.7). Was he unaware of the ancient use of hyperbole in regard to vitrium? Horace, whose works he had read (C.mend.28; S. 2.6; ep.1.7), utilized hyperbole to express the pervasiveness of human vices, particularly as beginning from birth (S. Q. Hoarti Flacci 1.68). Also, since newborns are incapable of talking or telling lies, even Ps.57.4 uses hyperbole (cf. John 21.25). Citing Eph 2.3, he assumes Augustinian original sin (cf. p.261). Even his own theology allows Ps 51.7 to mean David’s mother committed sin by sensually enjoying sexual intercourse during David’s conception. By using allegory for his major premise and de-contextualizing multiple scriptures, he concludes his novel theory of God’s wrath damning persons from an inherited reatus of concupiscence.”

Note several ironies here. Wilson loved to poison the well against Augustine and his spiritual heirs by playing the we must reject his views since they were novel and had pagan roots. But here, he said Augustine should have relied on pagan sources like Horace to understand Scriptures that according to Wilson must be read in hyperbolic way.

This leads to the other irony: while criticizing Augustine for not taking the Scriptural texts in a hyperbolic way like pagans (as in Horace) do, rather than see texts like Psalm 51:5 as literal, he turned around and claimed Augustine was using allegory for his views of such biblical texts. Seriously? Wilson totally contradicted himself there to slam Augustine.

Besides all that, the claims of the later Augustine (or after 411 AD) having novel views of such texts is also inaccurate. In addition, the claim the early Augustine denied such views of texts like Psalm 51:5 is totally inaccurate as well.

For starters, consider what Wilson on page 70 wrote on Origen’s views long before Augustine on Psalm 51:5:

“Celsus apparently taught some type of human sinfulness with guilt upon birth in contrast to the Christian teaching of moral innocence. Origen acknowledges that some biblical passages (e.g. Ps. 51) might appear to affirm such pagan ideas, but he denies any guilt for sin at birth (Cels.7.50). Indeed, the sin nature enters humans through physical birth (Hom. Lev.8.3, 12.4; Comm.Rom.5.9; Cels.7.50).”

Here is what Origen wrote in Against Celsus Book 7, Chapter 50: “Celsus has not explained how error accompanies the becoming, or product of generation; nor has he expressed himself with sufficient clearness to enable us to compare his ideas with ours, and to pass judgment on them. But the prophets, who have given some wise suggestions on the subject of things produced by generation, tell us that a sacrifice for sin was offered even for new-born infants, as not being free from sin. They say, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me; also, They are estranged from the womb; which is followed by the singular expression, They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.”

Contrary to what Wilson claimed, Origen 1) did not suggest that Celsus (who denied the Christian faith altogether) held to we are born sinful with guilt upon birth as such “pagan” idea and 2) Origen did not claim passages appear to teach such “pagan ideas” but said those passages actually such ideas Wilson deemed “pagan.” He said the prophets taught that a sacrifice for sin was offered for even infants since even they were not free from sin. Then he quoted Psalm 51:5 and 58:3 interpreting in the way that saw them as literally saying infants are not free from sin and need sacrifice for sin. 

But that’s not the only writing Wilson in the two sentences quoted from book badly misrepresented Origen on. In the latter’s  Homily on Leviticus 8.3, Origen said,

“But if it pleases you to hear what other saints also might think about this birthday, hear David speaking, ‘In iniquity I was conceived and in my sins my mother brought me forth,’ showing every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth ‘of iniquity of sin’; and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, ‘No one is pure from uncleanness even if his life is only one day long.’ To these things can be added the reason why it is required, since the baptism is given for the forgiveness of sins, that, according, to the observance of the Church, that baptism also be given to infants; since, certainly, if there were nothing in infants that ought to pertain to forgiveness and indulgence, then the grace of baptism would appear superflous.”

Not only Origen did not remotely see Psalm 51:5 as hyperbolic but saw them as prooftexts that infants had sins in them at birth that required them to be forgiven of as given in baptism. He took the very view of Psalm 51:5 that Wilson accused Augustine of Manichaean and Gnostic novelty over.

Consider Origen’s Romans 5.9 commentary: “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.”

Observe that Origen 1) denied Psalm 51:5 refers to any sin by David’s mother, 2) held to infants had sin guilt that required sacrifice, 3) baptism is needed by infants because they had sin that requires washing away, 4) John 3:5 is baptismal rebirth prooftext for Origen, putting the lie to the claim Augustine invented the idea of the text referring to baptism, rather than physical birth.

These statements by Origen in those three sources are the exact opposite of what Wilson claimed he held to in regards to whether infants are born sinners in need of forgiveness and salvation for sin guilt. In a span of two sentences in his dissertation, Wilson badly misrepresented three writings by Origen just so he claimed the idea of being born guilty of sin didn’t exist until later Augustine out of reverting back to various pagan views. 

Wilson wrote on page 60: “Therefore, Tertullian posited a physical transmission of both the corrupt nature and the residual divine nature. The corrupted nature causes physical death- not personal guilt to eternal damnation- while the residual divine nature allows humans to retain the ability to believe, thereby allowing each person to decide his or her eternal fate.”

On the contrary to what Wilson’s claim that humanity weren’t born condemned from Adam’s sin, Tertullian’s The Soul’s Testimony Chapter 3 affirmed the whole human race transmitted Adam’s condemnation: “In expressing vexation, contempt, or abhorrence, you have Satan constantly upon your lips; the very same we hold to be the angel of evil, the source of error, the corrupter of the whole world, by whom in the beginning man was entrapped into breaking the commandment of God.  And (the man) being given over to death on account of his sin, the entire human race, tainted in their descent from him, were made a channel for transmitting his condemnation.“

In his  A Treatise on the Soul Chapter 39: “It was from this circumstance that the apostle said, that when either of the parents was sanctified, the children were holy; 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: 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; in other words, he cannot be holy.”

Note that Tertullian said  that 1) children of believers can only be made holy, which he defined as salvation, by means of baptism (which he cited John 3:5 on again putting the lie to the claim that Augustine invented baptismal view of the text) and 2) children are made unclean by birth.

He elaborated in Chapter 40: “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; Romans 6:4 and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.”

And also 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.”

Notice that he connects the need for baptismal salvation to being unclean that comes by birth that 1) shared the nature in Adam and 2) embraced by the unholy spirit. These views were not, contrary to what Wilson wanted to claim, ideas Augustine decided to later in life push from Manichaeanism and Gnosticism. These ideas of us being born unclean and unholy (unsaved) in Adam were already there well before Augustine, even in someone like Tertullian.

On page 161, Wilson wrote: 

“Augustine’s circulus in probando claims Cyprian implicitly believed infants should be baptized for the purpose of expiating Augustinian original sin (Pecc.merit.3.10), which Cyprian never states (cf. Ch.3). Augustine correctly relates that even the ‘heretic’ Jovinian believed in original sin as evidenced by Jerome’s reply (Jov.2), which Augustine cites at length. Indeed, Jovinian and Jerome used the same scriptures as Augustine to demonstrate traditional original sin, but without Augustine’s damnable reatus, which Jerome never taught (Pecc. merit.3.12).”

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 on page 79 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.”

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 that 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.”

It wasn’t just Cyprian that was misrepresented by Wilson on page 161 so that he can malign Augustine. Contrary to what Wilson claimed, Jerome did take the side of (later) Augustine on original sin. 

Jerome in his later years wrote in Against the Pelagians Book 3: 

“And if you object that some are spoken of who did not sin, you must understand that they did not sin in the same way as Adam did by transgressing God's command in Paradise. But all men are held liable either on account of their ancient forefather Adam, or on their own account. He that is an infant is released in baptism from the chain which bound his father. He who is old enough to have discernment is set free from the chain of his own or another's sin by the blood of Christ.”

(As a side note, Jerome in the same writing held to the very view of John 6:44 that Wilson claimed Augustine alone held to on out of Manichaeanism against all other fathers: “Just as the vine branches and shoots immediately decay when they are severed from the parent stem, so all the strength of men fades and perishes, if it be bereft of the help of God. No one, He says, can come unto Me except the Father Who sent Me draw him. When He says, No one can come unto Me, He shatters the pride of free will; because, even if a man will to go to Christ, except that be realized which follows — unless My heavenly Father draw him— desire is to no purpose, and effort is in vain.”)

Earlier, in his  Against Jovinianus, Book 2, he affirmed 

“And we are held guilty after the simultitude of Adam's transgression. Hence David says, Behold, I was shapen in inquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Simply put, Jerome was another church father whose writings Wilson used and abused to pit him against Augustine to defame the latter. 

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.”

And finally, Wilson misrepresented early Augustine to pit him against later Augustine on Psalm 51:5. On page  264-5, he said,

“This verse appears prior to 411 CE in its traditional usage (e.g., Conf.1.7; 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’s what early Augustine wrote in his Confessions Book 1, Chapter 7, stating he was born with sin in him:

“11. Hearken, O God! Alas for the sins of men! Man says this, and You have compassion on him; for You created him, but did not create the sin that is in him. Who brings to my remembrance the sin of my infancy? For before You none is free from sin, not even the infant which has lived but a day upon the earth. Who brings this to my remembrance? Does not each little one, in whom I behold that which I do not remember of myself? In what, then, did I sin? Is it that I cried for the breast?”

Likewise, he said the same in his Psalm 51:10 exposition but also added that infants are born sharing  the guilt from Adam and needed forgiveness and salvation for that given in baptism (the very views Wilson attacked the later Augustine for holding to as if it originated from him later on):

“10. For, behold, in iniquities I was conceived. 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, 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.”

By Wilson’s own admissions, these were writings by “early Augustine” so he can falsely pit them against later Augustine.

In Wilson’s shorter book, The Foundation of Augustinianism-Calvinism, Wilson compounded his history revisionism and false accusations of Augustine inventing his version of original sin that have us born guilty of sin and needing baptismal forgiveness out of Manichaeanism and Gnosticism by claiming the renown church historian Jaroslav Pelikan’s Christian Tradition Volume 1 for support. He wrote on page 60 of that shorter book: “The famous scholar Pelikan appropriately lamented Augustine's rejection of traditional Christian theology and Augustine's feeble excuse for doing so.”

Pelikan in fact is that book on page 292 said Augustine’s views were not novel but passed on from prior fathers especially Cyprian:

"Augustine,  who learned from  Ambrose to draw the anthropological implication of the doctrine of the virgin birth learned from Cyprian- and specifically from the epistle just quoted, which he called Cyprian's 'book on the baptism of infants'- to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they were nevertheless held responsible. 'The uniqueness of the remedy' in baptism, it could be argued, proved 'the very depth of evil' into which mankind had sunk through Adam's fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. Cyprian's teaching showed that this view of sin was not an innovation, but the 'ancient, implanted opinion of the church.' On the basis of Cyprian's discussion of infant baptism and of Ambrose's interpretation of the virgin birth, Augustine could claim that 'what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the catholic faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by the fathers and to this time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it.' This faith he expressed in his theology of grace."

So it isn’t just early fathers but also church historians like Pelikan that Wilson used and abused to defame Augustine and by extension all his spiritual heirs, including Lutherans here at this blog.

Simply put, Wilson’s dissertation is indefensible. It is pure propaganda smear job against the great defender of the faith, Augustine.

Here we stand.