Some of Ken Wilson’s errors are comical. In his interview with Leighton Flowers (at the 18:36 mark), he said Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian argued against Stoics, Gnostics and Manichaeans. There’s just one problem in regards to the Manichaeans:
Irenaeus (203 AD) and Clement of Alexandria (between 211 and 215 AD) died before Mani (founder of the Manichaeans) was even born (216 AD). And Tertullian died (around past 220 AD) at the time Mani was an infant.
The interview can be found here:
https://youtu.be/BnOMORGM2Qw
(Similarly in his dissertation, he asserted that Origen’s First Principles scoffed at the Manichaeans (and Gnostics). The problem? That was written around 231 AD at the latest. Manichaeanism wasn’t founded until 242 AD.)
This came after minutes earlier, Wilson claimed that Augustine came up with baptismal regeneration and salvation (regardless of his denials of him saying that in follow-up interview with Flowers), as a result of him reverting back to his old “pagan” (as in Gnostic, Manichaean, etc.) views, whereas prior church fathers didn’t hold to it (see 9:59-10:04 mark).
The irony is that all the above church fathers mentioned explicitly affirmed baptismal regeneration and salvation, and both Irenaeus and Tertullian argued against Gnostics on that very issue.
Irenaeus’ Against Heresies Book 1 Chapter 21 anathematized the Gnostics for rejecting baptismal regeneration: “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.”
This same church father also wrote in the same writing, Book II, Chapter 22, of such regeneration being for infants as well: “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.”
Likewise, he wrote in Fragment 34:
“ ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ 2 Kings 5:14 It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ John 3:5
Note, he affirmed not only baptismal regeneration but also for infants (refuting Wilson’s claims in his interview- at 7:42 mark- and writings of infant baptism was practiced early on in local areas for reasons no one knew then) and with John 3:5 view of it (refuting Wilson’s claims in especially his dissertation as well as his shorter writing that Augustine invented baptismal regeneration view of John 3:5, in place of physical birth for water, as well as view of its application to infant baptism).
And the bishop of Lyons affirmed baptismal regeneration in his Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching as well:
“First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God; and that what is everlasting and continuing is made God; and is over all things that are made, and all things are put under Him; |and all the things that are put under Him are made His own; for God is not ruler and Lord over the things of another, but over His own; and all things are God's; and therefore God is Almighty, and all things are of God.”
Tertullian also argued against Gnostics in defense of baptismal regeneration. In chapter 1 of On Baptism, he wrote:
“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism.”
Likewise, he wrote in response to Gnostics in Against Marcion, Book I, Chapter 28:
“And what will happen to him after he is cast away? He will, they say, be thrown into the Creator's fire. Then has no remedial provision been made (by their god) for the purpose of banishing those that sin against him, without resorting to the cruel measure of delivering them over to the Creator? And what will the Creator then do? I suppose He will prepare for them a hell doubly charged with brimstone, as for blasphemers against Himself; except indeed their god in his zeal, as perhaps might happen, should show clemency to his rival's revolted subjects. Oh, what a god is this! everywhere perverse; nowhere rational; in all cases vain; and therefore a nonentity! — in whose state, and condition, and nature, and every appointment, I see no coherence and consistency; no, not even in the very sacrament of his faith! For what end does baptism serve, according to him? If the remission of sins, how will he make it evident that he remits sins, when he affords no evidence that he retains them? Because he would retain them, if he performed the functions of a judge. If deliverance from death, how could he deliver from death, who has not delivered to death? For he must have delivered the sinner to death, if he had from the beginning condemned sin. If the regeneration of man, how can he regenerate, who has never generated? For the repetition of an act is impossible to him, by whom nothing any time has been ever done. If the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, how will he bestow the Spirit, who did not at first impart the life? For the life is in a sense the supplement of the Spirit. He therefore seals man, who had never been unsealed in respect of him; washes man, who had never been defiled so far as he was concerned; and into this sacrament of salvation wholly plunges that flesh which is beyond the pale of salvation! No farmer will irrigate ground that will yield him no fruit in return, except he be as stupid as Marcion's god. Why then impose sanctity upon our most infirm and most unworthy flesh, either as a burden or as a glory? What shall I say, too, of the uselessness of a discipline which sanctifies what is already sanctified? Why burden the infirm, or glorify the unworthy? Why not remunerate with salvation what it burdens or else glorifies? Why keep back from a work its due reward, by not recompensing the flesh with salvation? Why even permit the honour of sanctity in it to die?”
See this article for further details on Tertullian’s views of baptismal regeneration and salvation, infant baptism, John 3:5 as baptism regeneration text and original sin in response to Wilson’s interview with Flowers:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/12/response-to-ken-wilson-interview-done.html?m=1
So when it comes to the issue of baptismal regeneration and salvation, the pre-Augustine church fathers weren’t on Wilson’s side. Much less is it real history to claim Augustine got it from Gnosticism when Gnostics were the ones who opposed baptismal regeneration and salvation prior to him. Wilson’s denials of baptismal salvation and regeneration are the novelties here, and many centuries after Augustine. That is if we don’t count Gnostics.
To further highlight this point of all three early Christians mentioned by Wilson to Flowers affirming baptismal salvation and regeneration, here’s Clement of Alexandria’s The Instructor Book 1 Chapter 12:
“The view I take is, that He Himself formed man of the dust, and regenerated him by water; and made him grow by his Spirit; and trained him by His word to adoption and salvation, directing him by sacred precepts; in order that, transforming earth-born man into a holy and heavenly being by His advent.”
So, yes, he was right in the interview that those three were arguing against Gnostics. But baptismal regeneration is not the issue Wilson honestly should be appealing to them on. Nor make spurious claims that Augustine came up with baptismal regeneration and salvation out of Gnosticism.
And same holds true as well for Origen since Wilson used him the same way as he did those other three (even in regards to falsely claiming he scoffed at Manichaeans in a writing before they were even around). He also held to baptismal regeneration as one can see here in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book VI:
“These, then, are the parallel passages of the four; let us try to see as clearly as we can what is the purport of each and wherein they differ from each other. And we will begin with Matthew, who is reported by tradition to have published his Gospel before the others, to the Hebrews, those, namely, of the circumcision who believed. I, he says, baptize you with water unto repentance, purifying you, as it were, and turning you away from evil courses and calling you to repentance; for I have come to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him, and by my baptism of repentance to prepare the ground for Him who is to come after me, and who will thus benefit you much more effectively and powerfully than my strength could. For His baptism is not that of the body only; He fills the penitent with the Holy Ghost, and His diviner fire does away with everything material and consumes everything that is earthy, not only from him who admits it to his life, but even from him who hears of it from those who have it. So much stronger than I is He who is coming after me, that I am not able to bear even the outskirts of the powers round Him which are furthest from Him (they are not open and exposed, so that any one could see them), nor even to bear those who support them. I know not of which I should speak. Should I speak of my own great weakness, which is not able to bear even these things about Christ which in comparison with the greater things in Him are least, or should I speak of His transcendent Deity, greater than all the world? If I who have received such grace, as to be thought worthy of prophecy predicting my arrival in this human life, in the words, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, and Behold I send my messenger before your face; if I whose birth Gabriel who stands before God announced to my father so advanced in years, so much against his expectation, I at whose name Zacharias recovered his voice and was enabled to use it to prophesy, I to whom my Lord bears witness that among them that are born of women there is none greater than I, I am not able so much as to bear His shoes! And if not His shoes, what can be said about His garments? Who is so great as to be able to guard His coat? Who can suppose that He can understand the meaning contained in His tunic which is without seam from the top because it is woven throughout? It is to be observed that while the four represent John as declaring himself to have come to baptize with water, Matthew alone adds the words to repentance, teaching that the benefit of baptism is connected with the intention of the baptized person; to him who repents it is salutary, but to him who comes to it without repentance it will turn to greater condemnation. And here we must note that as the wonderful works done by the Saviour in the cures He wrought, which are symbolic of those who at any time are set free by the word of God from any sickness or disease, though they were done to the body and brought a bodily relief, yet also called those who were benefited by them to an exercise of faith, so the washing with water which is symbolic of the soul cleansing herself from every stain of wickedness, is no less in itself to him who yields himself to the divine power of the invocation of the Adorable Trinity, the beginning and source of divine gifts; for there are diversities of gifts. This view receives confirmation from the narrative recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, which shows the Spirit to have descended so manifestly on those who receive baptism, after the water had prepared the way for him in those who properly approached the rite. Simon Magus, astonished at what he saw, desired to receive from Peter this gift, but though it was a good thing he desired, he thought to attain it by the mammon of unrighteousness. We next remark in passing that the baptism of John was inferior to the baptism of Jesus which was given through His disciples. Those persons in the Acts Acts 19:2 who were baptized to John's baptism and who had not heard if there was any Holy Ghost are baptized over again by the Apostle. Regeneration did not take place with John, but with Jesus through His disciples it does so, and what is called the laver of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit; for the Spirit now comes in addition since it comes from God and is over and above the water and does not come to all after the water. So far, then, our examination of the statements in the Gospel according to Matthew.”
And two of Origen’s works refute the claim that no one then knew why infant baptism was practiced. One was 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.”
The other is Leviticus 8.3 Homily:
“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.”
Wilson would know that there were explanations for why infant baptism was practiced then since he claimed both writings denied Psalm 51:5 refers to sin guilt at birth that needs forgiveness at baptism (falsely as seen here). Such claims can be found in both his published dissertation book (page 70) and the shorter writing (page 69 footnote) based off that. Yet, he claimed at various times in his dissertation, interview and shorter book that no one, not even Augustine, knew why infant baptism was practiced prior to Augustine making up reasons out of Manichaeanism and Gnosticism after 411 AD according to Wilson).
All so he can push the false narrative as he did that pre-Augustine church fathers’ and Orr-412 AD Augustine’s free choice view required rejecting baptism for salvation on page 120 of his dissertation book), on top of his Manichaean Gnostic and Augustine novelty cards on baptismal salvation and regeneration, especially of infants.
So here’s an idea: when Wilson (at the 15:41 mark) make the statement that Augustine was more into polemics than being a student of Scriptures, maybe he ought to reconsider his own polemical methodology that is filled with blatant inaccuracies just so he can grind his axe against Augustine and baptismal and sacramental theologies in general. Glasshouses and all. Just a thought.
Here we stand.
