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
I responded to his (false) claims that 1) he never suggested Augustine was the first to reach infant baptism was done for forgiveness of sins and 2) none of the pre-Augustine church father quotes refuted his claims:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2022/08/dismantling-ken-wilsons-attempt-at_19.html?m=1
This article will be the second of several part responses to his claims that 1) John 3:5 water was seen as physical birth, 2) Augustine invented baptismal salvation and John 3:5 view of it, 3) Augustine prior to 412 didn’t hold to baptismal salvation view of the text.
The first of that focused specifically on the fact that early Christianity referenced John 3:5 as baptismal in fact unanimously before and even after Augustine:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2023/07/dismantling-ken-wilsons-attempt-at.html
Now this article will address the mind-boggling attempt by Ken Wilson to prove 1) his view of John 3:5 water is physical birth isn't novel and unprecedented in the early church and 2) I'm uneducated for not knowing that (on top of his gratuitous insults at my English skills).
How did he made that attempt? He did so by claiming that there's this person named John Calvin who in his commentary affirmed John 3:5 water is physical birth, and I would know that had I been educated.
Seriously? Imagine trying to claim his view wasn't a recent novelty then the early church by claiming someone in the 1500s (well, well after the early church).
Even if true of Calvin, it's a total self-own for several reasons:
1) he's 1500s, not early church, so Wilson still proved my point that his view is novel,
2) Wilson can't quote a pre-Augustine church father that agreed with him that John 3:5 water is physical birth,
3) he's appealing to a Reformer (Calvin) who he wants to paint as Manichaean Gnostic in theology via Augustine. That is very similar to Leighton Flowers later on in the video appealing to the Reformed (who as followers of Calvin, would be Manichaean Gnostics in theology according to him and Wilson) as those who agree with them the early church didn't affirmed baptismal salvation. Talk about lack of self-awareness of how hypocritical they looked outside their fandom.
But here's the biggest reason why it is a self-own: the claim about Calvin holding to physical birth view of John 3:5 water is false, and Wilson either exposed himself as more uneducated then the person he said is uneducated (me), or was simply being dishonest (which is more likely, given all the gaslighting in the video, so makes him mocking and laughing while lying all the more diabolical of him and Flowers).
And here's proof from Calvin's commentary that he didn't affirmed physical birth view of John 3:5 water in his commentary:
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/john-3.html
"By water, therefore, is meant nothing more than the inward purification and invigoration which is produced by the Holy Spirit. Besides, it is not unusual to employ the word and instead of that is, when the latter clause is intended to explain the former. And the view which I have taken is supported by what follows; for when Christ immediately proceeds to assign the reason why we must be born again, without mentioning the water, he shows that the newness of life which he requires is produced by the Spirit alone; whence it follows, that water must not be separated from the Spirit."
Sure, Calvin didn't affirmed baptismal view of the text either so his view of it was novel. Just not physical birth level novel.
It says a lot that Wilson (aided and abetted by Flowers) had to fabricate a source (from the 1500s author they tried to link to pagan heresies no less) to mock and laugh at me for needing to get an education when I can produce (and have) tons of church fathers affirming baptismal salvation view of John 3:5 (while they can't produce one single church father quote that affirmed physical birth view).
Here we stand.
