Dismantling Ken Wilson’s attempt at dismantling my review

 Recently in an interview video, Ken Wilson responded to customer reviews of his book (including one by me).

My review (and the quotes I provided from pre-Augustine church fathers) can be found here:

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/108280035X/ref=acr_search_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

Interestingly, his defense to the quotes on church fathers I provided in my Amazon review was that he never said no one prior to Augustine held to infant baptism for forgiveness of sins but that they didn’t hold to Augustinian original sin.

That can be found here at the 24:14 mark:

https://youtu.be/jDgYD9UMWuk

There’s just one problem. In a prior interview, he claimed infant baptism happened early in a localized area for reasons no one knew why, not even Augustine around 400. 

See here at the 7:42-45 mark (at the 9:59-10:04 Wilson claimed Augustine during the Pelagian controversy invented baptismal salvation and regeneration as to explain infant baptism whereas no one in the early church did before):

https://youtu.be/BnOMORGM2Qw

In his published dissertation Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will", he stated on page 282,

“Only in North Africa and nearby Rome do we have the earliest proofs for paedobaptism; and, only with Augustine does a newborn's salvation from inherited eternal damnation come through proxy faith, this being challenged by a contemporary local bishop. Prior to 412 CE, even Augustine had viewed baptism as unnecessary for salvation and paedobaptism had no explanation. Therefore, concurring with Sage's assessment, speculating an apostolic origin for paedobaptism as forgiving damnable inherited reatus appears precarious.”

On page 298 (last page of his dissertation as conclusion), he wrote, “The Bishop of Hippo ultimately coalesces these divergent philosophical-religious worldviews into a unique Christianity resulting from the unexplained predicament of the paedobaptismal tradition.”

Similarly in The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism page 97, he stated, “Only in North Africa and nearby Rome do we have the earliest proofs for infant baptism, and only with Augustine does a newborn's salvation from inherited eternal damnation come by proxy through parental faith. This claim was challenged by a contemporary local bishop. Prior to 412 CE, even Augustine had viewed baptism as unnecessary for salvation and infant baptism had no explanation. Therefore, as Sage concluded, speculating an apostolic origin for infant baptism to forgive damnable guilt inherited from Adam appears unlikely.”

So when he repeatedly claimed infant baptism was a practice no one knew why was practiced for, not even Augustine, prior to 412, he does not get to change his stance when it suits him, and said he never claimed they didn’t affirmed infant baptism for forgiveness of sins. If they didn’t know why infant baptism was done, then they didn’t hold to it was done for forgiveness of sins. 

The moment Wilson stated that they did affirmed infant baptism was done for forgiveness of sins, he acknowledged that they did know why it was done with explanation for it (forgiveness of sins). By changing his story, when cornered, it means he as a scholar lost this historical debate to this “sophomoric, uneducated, and unscholarly person” as he referred to me.

And remember, he used the argument of no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD as one of his key “proofs” for Augustinian original sin could not have been of apostolic origin. (The other equally false claims are that infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome and baptism as necessary to salvation was denied even by Augustine prior to 412, and these claims will be dealt with here since they relate to the church father quotes I provided in my Amazon review of his book.) So by acknowledging that this claim isn’t true (without ever admitting he ever made that claim), he destroyed one of his own “proof” he used against Augustinian original sin as existing either prior to Augustine or back to apostolic times.

Plus, his argument was that the reason why Augustine’s “pagan novelties” came about was because infant baptism was an “unexplained” tradition. By stating that he never denied pre-Augustine fathers taught infant baptism for forgiveness of sins, he destroyed that narrative he made as well. He can’t say that isn’t the point in regards to the church father quotes I gave when those quotes refute his narrative.

Plus, that isn’t the only problem here. In regards to the pre-Augustine church father quotes I provided,  he claimed he never denied any of them taught infant baptism for forgiveness of sins. Here’s the problem: he actually denied a number of those I quoted affirmed infant baptism for forgiveness of sins (in some cases, even infant baptism itself) in his published dissertation Conversion.

For starters, on page 75, he stated, “No second-century author had discussed paedobaptism” then stated “until Tertullian opposed it (ca.200).” (Tertullian will be dealt with later here.)

Remember one of the church fathers I quoted from was Irenaeus who was a second century author, specifically Fragment 34 and Against Heresies 2.22.4. By not denying on air that he taught infant baptism for forgiveness of sins, Wilson refuted his own claim in his dissertation that no one discussed, much less, affirmed infant baptism (much less infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins).

Keep in mind here, Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons. So that meant not only was Wilson refuted there in his claim in his dissertation (as well as even this same interview when he later said no one prior to the 200s affirmed infant baptism), but also in his claim that infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome.

Plus, Irenaeus’ Fragment 34 cited John 3:5 as referring to baptism. That refutes Wilson’s claims he made various times that Augustine’s view of John 3:5 regeneration requirement being baptismal was “novel” in place of physical birth for water in both Conversion and Foundation. For example, Wilson wrote in Conversion page 188 that “he alters John 3.5 from physical birth into water baptism.” And he claimed Augustine’s view of “water baptism as essential for salvation” as “allegorized” and “novel” view of John 3:5 on page 174. 

And in Foundation page 72 footnote,  he wrote, “The context clarifies the physical birth versus spiritual birth with the mother's ‘water breaking’ being the common terminology for a physical birth even in our modern time.”

The fact that Irenaeus in 180 AD held to John 3:5 as baptismal over 200 years prior to post 411-AD Augustine also refutes Wilson’s claim of Augustine’s view of John 3:5 as novel. (If anything it’s Wilson’s view of John 3:5 water as physical birth that’s novel, and by over a thousand years after Augustine.)

Furthermore, Irenaeus in Against Heresies 2.22.4 extended those born again to include infants. Given he equated born again with baptism in Fragment 34 (see also Against Heresies 1.21.1 against Gnostics, an irony since Wilson claimed Augustine invented baptismal view of John 3:5 out of Gnosticism etc.). So that refutes Wilson’s claim as well that Augustine was first to use it as well in support of infant baptism after 412 AD. For example in Conversion pads 244, he made statement of Augustine “reinterpreting John 3.5 as the paedobaptismal tradition.”

So the Irenaeus quotes posted in the Amazon review by themselves disprove these claims Wilson made in his dissertation: 1) no second century author discussed (much less affirmed) infant baptism (much less infant baptism for forgiveness of sins), 2) infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome (given Irenaeus was at Lyons), 3) no one knew why infant baptism was practiced (Irenaeus stated it was to cleanse us- adult or infant- of sins- and to regenerate, the latter contrary to Wilson’s claim later in the video interview that it wasn’t for regeneration or salvation but as Baptist type baby dedication contradicting his earlier claim that he never denied infant baptism was done for forgiveness of sins), 4) Augustine altered John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism, 5) Augustine was first to apply John 3:5 as baptismal text for infants, 6) Augustine invented infant baptism for salvation as “the critical foundation in his novel theology” (Wilson’s own words in quote in Foundation page 78 when he equated that as holding to initial faith is a gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8, which would mean Irenaeus held to that by such logic for holding to infant baptismal salvation and regeneration).

Besides proven wrong here on page 75 of Conversion, that infant baptism wasn’t discussed or affirmed in the second century, Wilson also was rebutted on his claim that Hippolytus’ “purpose remains opaque” for infant baptism by what I quoted on the Amazon review from that church father’s Apostolic Tradition with he stated the recipients of baptism (including infants) had their sins removed, were filled with the Holy Spirit and given bath of regeneration. That’s  the exact opposite of opaque. 

Saying his purpose for infant baptism remains opaque is same as saying he didn’t hold to it for forgiveness of sins. So as with Irenaeus, his quote is relevant in that he was another specific church father Wilson denied holding to infant baptism for forgiveness of sins (and he denied Irenaeus even taught infant baptism). So he can’t claim the quotes don’t refute him when he said he never claimed prior fathers didn’t teach infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Besides the many times he claim they didn’t know why infant baptism was practiced, he stated specific ones like these didn’t even hold to infant baptism for forgiveness of sins.

And as with Irenaeus, Hippolytus holding to infant baptism for regeneration and salvation meant that by Wilson’s logic in Foundation page 78, they held to the “critical foundation in his (Augustine’s) novel theology” and to initial faith is a gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8 (since Wilson equated that with infant baptism for salvation) before Augustine did.

Wilson also wrote this on page 75 of Conversion:

“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.’ 

“Origen's works discussing paedobaptism (Hom. Lev. 8.3, 12.4; Hom. Lc.14.5; Comm. Rom. 5.9) were written after leaving Alexandria for Rome and then Caesarea. One could postulate Origen's encounter with paedobaptism from his visit to Hippolytus (ca.212 CE, H..6.14.10; Viris ill.61), who practiced it in Rome; or, from bishops in Carthage, en route during that journey. Rome and Carthage were close geographically and politically, and postulating a provenance in Carthage (where it is first attested by Tertullian) then becoming commonplace decades later in Rome (where it is next attested by Hippolytus) would not be difficult. For Origen, it appears to be a geographically limited sacrament for which no accepted theological explanation existed, particularly no concept of Adam transferring guilt unto damnation upon his descendants. Origen vainly searched scripture attempting to uncover a biblical explanation for this tradition. Considering this brilliant and speculative inquisitor's personal acquaintance with Hippolytus in Rome who practiced paedobaptism, this glaring omission stands stark. If one should dare deem those few non-contextual sentences in Comm. Rom. 5.9.11 to be genuine, this piercing contradiction accentuates the silence.”

Note Wilson claimed Origen 1) denied infant baptism, 2) denied infant baptism for forgiveness of sins, 3) had no theological explanation for infant baptism, 4) had no biblical explanation for infant baptism, 5) saw infant baptism as localized. And he made the claims of Origen using his Homily 8.3 on Leviticus and (other writings) as reference! 

The quotes I provided from Origen in the Amazon review showed he said the exact opposite in all these regards. 

He said in Leviticus 8.3 homily that “baptism of the Church is given for the forgiveness of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, that Baptism is given even to infants.”

Note here that Origen 1) affirmed infant baptism (exact opposite of what Wilson claimed in his dissertation), 2) affirmed infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins (exact opposite of what Wilson claimed in his dissertation and hence he can’t claim as he did he never denied him, Irenaeus and Hippolytus held to infant baptism for forgiveness of sins).

And Origen, contrary to what Wilson claimed, gave biblical explanation for infant baptism as well. He said in the 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 sins my mother brought me forth,’ showing that every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth ‘of iniquity and sin,’ and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, ‘No one is pure from uncleanness even in his life is only one day long.”

Note that Origen quoted Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4-5 LXX as biblical explanation for infant baptism, refuting Wilson’s claim he had no biblical explanation for infant baptism. It also refutes Ken Wilson’s claim on pages 264-5 of Conversion (published dissertation) that those two texts used as support for infant baptism was novel with Augustine.

Here’s what Wilson claimed on those passages:

“VIlI. Psalms 51.5 (50.7, LXX)

“This verse appears prior to 411 CE in its traditional usage (e.g., Conf. 1.7, Emar. 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. This novel meaning occurs in Grat, Chr.2.47….”

Besides the fact that Origen already quoted these texts in support of infant baptism, Wilson’s claim that Augustine didn’t cite Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4 LXX in his pre-411 AD Psalm 51.10 exposition is false as well. Here’s what Augustine wrote:

“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.’ “

That’s on top of Origen’s Romans 5.9.11 commentary specifically citing John 3:5 as baptismal and applicable to infants long before Augustine ever did:

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by washed away through water and the Spirit.”

That’s what I quoted from that writing in the Amazon review. Had I quoted it more fully, it would show that this writing also cited Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4 LXX in support of infant baptism long before Augustine ever did:

“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.”

Wilson did claimed on page 75 that Romans 5.9.11 wasn’t what Origen actually wrote (he claimed on page 74 that it affirmed Augustinian original sin so it can’t be real) but then why list Romans 5.9 commentary as we have now as reference for claims that Origen had no theological or biblical explanation for infant baptism and saw it as localized practice when (as with Leviticus 8.3 homily, which Wilson didn’t dispute) the opposite is true in all these regards?

And in the interview, Wilson didn’t even dispute this writing as well. So the short quote from Romans 5.9.11 stands uncontested in the interview as evidence that John 3:5 was seen as baptismal salvation text, including infants, by Origen (as well as Irenaeus before him), contrary to Wilson’s claims that John 3:5, Psalm 51:5, and Job 14:4 LXX (latter two texts in Leviticus 8.3 Homily also) were all “Manichaean Gnostic” novelties of Augustine from 412 AD onwards.

And the fact he in his dissertation claimed Romans 5.9.11 commentary taught Augustinian original sin (though it didn’t mentioned Adam’s sin or guilt) so must be fake contradicts his own claim none of the writings I quoted affirmed Augustinian original sin, since one of those writings was that.

Even aside from Romans 5.9.11 commentary, we have evidence from Origen, along with Irenaeus and Hippolytus so far affirming infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins (and regeneration if you count Romans 5.9.11 commentary not to mention that’s affirmed by both Irenaeus and Hippolytus), to the contrary of Wilson claiming they didn’t in his dissertation. 

Now with my quote of Cyprian’s epistle in the Amazon review, it is a more complicated case. Why? On page 79 of Conversion, Wilson actually stated Cyprian affirmed infant baptism and listed ten reasons why (destroying his own narrative no one knew why infant baptism was practiced up to 412 AD). One of the reasons he gave as list from Cyprian was: “if the greatest sinners can be forgiven then infants should easily be forgiven.”

So at the very least he here said Cyprian said infant baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. 

But then Wilson claimed first that Cyprian didn’t mentioned Adam’s sin despite the fact the church father said that infants aren’t forgiven in own sins but for sins of another? Exactly who is another if not Adam’s?

Further down the page, Wilson stated that Cyprian’s view “matches Origen’s contemporaneous assessment of paedobaptism as removing the stain of entering a physical body, without sin or damnable guilt.” Besides contradicting own narrative a few pages earlier of Origen having no theological explanation for infant baptism, Wilson in a matter of a paragraph went from saying Cyprian held to infants have sins forgiven in baptism to denying either they or Adam have sins that need forgiveness in baptism but only removal of the stain from the body (Wilson said Origen held to that in denial of infant baptism for sin as his theological explanation of infant baptism in Luke 14.5 commentary- which by the way referenced John 3:5 and Job 14:4 LXX for infant baptism, on page 72, a few pages before saying Origen didn’t have any theological or biblical explanation for infant baptism even in that reference along with the ones mentioned already).

Also, Cyprian did state that infant baptism was to be done as soon as possible after birth so that none are lost, and that’s also quoted in the Amazon review. That showed another pre-Augustine church father who again affirmed infant baptism for salvation- which Wilson equated with holding to initial faith is a gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8 and “critical foundation in his (Augustine’s) novel theology” on page 78 of Foundation. And it refutes Wilson even in the recent interview where he denied infant baptism was for regeneration and salvation but as Baptist baby dedication.

And with Augustine’s mentor Ambrose’s On Abraham 2.84, here’s what I quoted it as saying:

“Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments, but I do not know whether they have the honor of the Kingdom.”

Just a few pages earlier in On Abraham 2.79, he had already stated John 3:5 was baptismal salvation necessity text: “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.”

So his quotes as bishop of Milan refute Wilson’s claims already mentioned that 1) Augustine altered John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism after 412 AD, 2) Augustine re-interpreted John 3:5 as infant baptism text, 3) infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome, 4) infant baptism wasn’t done for regeneration or salvation but baby dedication (this latter claim made in the recent interview), 5) no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD.

It also refutes Wilson’s claim that Ambrose denied infant baptismal regeneration necessity and John 3:5 view of it on page 175 of Conversion:

“When Augustine accuses Vincentius of believing in original sin while denying the necessity of regeneration through water baptism for infants (2.17), he simultaneously accuses Ambrose who taught the same thing.”

So again, another church father who held to the “critical foundation in his (Augustine’s) novel theology”- that is infant baptism for salvation, equated with initial faith is gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8 by Wilson.

So let’s deal with Tertullian said Wilson loved to appeal to him. The quotes from him provided in the Amazon review is problematic for Wilson in several ways. 

First off, his Treatise on the Soul 41 affirmed John 3:5 is baptismal regeneration text which goes against Wilson’s narrative that Augustine altered John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism:

“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.”

Secondly, Tertullian affirmed in chapter 40 that we are by reason of birth sinful in Adam until regeneration, and hence sinful until then:

“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.”

When it suits him, Wilson will acknowledged earlier Christians affirmed we have corrupted nature from Adam’s fall as he did on page 105 of Foundation:

“As early as ca.120 CE, Christian authors had advocated physical death and a corrupted human nature from Adam's fall (Barn.) while acknowledging a residual free choice (Herm.).”

But when it no longer suits him, he argued on page 77 of the same book: “the prior traditional Christian view of Eph. 2:3 (nature corrupted from personal sin.”

Tertullian’s quote from chapter 40 refutes that claim that we are born corrupted from Adam’s sin and need regeneration from birth for that originated with Augustine’s “Manichaean Gnosticism.”

What I should have done was quote the end of chapter 39 from Tertullian. Why? He actually affirmed infant baptismal regeneration necessity and directly quoted John 3:5 (and 1 Corinthians 7:14) in support of it):

“ Hence in no case (I mean of the heathen, of course) is there any nativity which is pure of idolatrous superstition. 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.”  

So even Tertullian, on top of Irenaeus, Origen, and Ambrose, held to infant baptismal regeneration view of John 3:5 prior to Augustine, again contrary to Wilson’s narrative of 1) no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412, 2) Augustine first applied John 3:5 to infants.

Now, let’s address Wilson’s claim in the video interview that Tertullian denied infant baptism in a writing (which by the way was earlier in life) because of age of accountability. That’s really twisting what Tertullian said in On Baptism 18. 

Tertullian recommended delays of baptism for every age, not limited to infants, including those well page ”age of accountabilit”:

“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.”

His concern was possibility of people falling away into mortal sins after baptism (for which there is no more baptismal recourse, and note not once did he suggest re-baptism in case infants did get baptized):

“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?”

And even in this chapter, he acknowledged that infant baptism does remit sins if administered:

“Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins?”

That in itself refutes Wilson’s claim that no one knew why infant baptism was practiced back then. Obviously Tertullian knew why (and didn’t even denied its efficacy).

Note that Tertullian gave the same argument for delays for the unwedded (way above “age of accountability”):

“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.”

Besides all that, Tertullian was the wrong person for Wilson to try to claim for support of his beliefs to condemn other views as Gnostic: he condemned Wilson’s  denials of baptismal salvation and regeneration as Cainite Gnosticism in the first chapter of On Baptism that Wilson so claimed:

“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. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!”

The fact of the matter is that Irenaeus, Origen, Ambrose and Tertullian were quoted as affirming baptismal salvation view of John 3:5. (The other church fathers mentioned did as well, as did others since no one then affirmed the text as anything other than baptism contrary to Wilson’s claim that Augustine altered the text from physical birth to his “novel and “allegorized” view of baptism.

And why does it matter? The fact that they saw such text as applying to infants meant that what Wilson called the critical foundation to Augustine’s novel theology (infant baptism for salvation) would be coming from pre-Augustine church fathers. Not Manichaean Gnosticism and other forms of paganism. By his logic with equating infant baptism for salvation, with initial faith is a gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8, that means prior church fathers held to such view of the text as well. Never mind the fact that both Jerome and Chrysostom said prior to Augustine’s supposed 412 AD Manichaean novelty view of the text that initial faith is a gift of God view of the text, and by the way they both taught infant baptism at Bethlehem and Constantinople, respectively (rebutting Wilson’s claims that infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome). And they taught it for salvation as well (though Chrysostom definitely held to ancestral sin).

So, yes it is the point. Wilson made it as such.

And my final point deals with what Wilson wrote on page 120 of Conversion: 

“In De baptismo, we find abundant proof of Augustine's persistent traditional free choice theology: ‘Quid sit autem perniciosius, utrum omnino non baptizari, an rebaptizari, judicari difficile est' (Bapt.2.19).’ Salvation can occur without water baptism, demonstrating John 3.5 has not yet evolved into a proof text.

“Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against Augustine's earlier conversion in Simpl.2 is his traditional view of water baptism. The very thing he later insisted upon as required to erase inherited guilt unto damnation is not yet necessary for salvation in 404 CE. 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 as bad as no baptism. (His argument rests upon his deficient knowledge of Greek since the Latin texts obscure the meaning in John 13.10 as a rinse and not a full bath.) Traditional free choice continues in earnest as human faith can even negate the need for baptism.”

Even in the context Wilson referenced Augustine’s On Baptism 2.19 on, Augustine affirmed John 3:5 as baptismal salvation necessity text, not physical birth, a decade before he supposedly brought in baptismal view to replace physical birth view out of Gnosticism, Manicheanism, etc:

“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.’ “

So if we go by Wilson’s claim that affirming traditional free choice theology and rejecting Augustinian original sin requires rejecting John 3:5 as baptismal salvation prooftext, he just sank his own thesis as well there since no church fathers denied John 3:5 is baptismal regeneration necessity (allowing for exceptions isn’t a denial of that. 

Just the church fathers quoted in the Amazon review on John 3:5 already would have sank that thesis since Wilson claimed Augustine had no one on his side on this from prior church fathers.

Here we stand.