Intro:
Dr. Ken Wilson summarise his Doctoral thesis titled: “Augustine’s conversion from traditional free choice to ‘non-free Free Will’: A comprehensive methodology” (Mohr Siebeck 2018) in an easily readable seven chapters. Wilson contends that the earliest Christian Fathers (95-400 CE) before St. Augustine of Hippo (386-411 CE) held to a “libertarian free will” and a free choice in salvation. Augustine later reverted to a then pagan, “non-free Free Will,” or, as Wilson calls it, “divine unilateral determinism of eternal destinies (pg.1).” Wilson concludes that Augustinian-Calvinism is not an essential Biblical deduction, but rather formulated by an influence of “pagan syncretism (pg.2).”
Chapter 1:
Wilson sets off by defining these influential philosophies as ‘Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Manicheanism’ that all gave life to Augustine’s later theology, coining what Wilson describes as “divine unilateral predetermination of individuals’ eternal destines” or “DUPIED” (pg.5) in short. Wilson mentions that for the Stoics, there was assumed freedom that was ultimately “hidden within a mere façade of “free will (Pg.7)”. For Neoplatonists, a free choice meant that there is a need for the restoration “by divine infusion to restore the will (pg.9).” For Gnostics, “all works are predestined, discipline and abstinence effect nothing, and the elect are saved by knowing that they are saved (pg.12).” Lastly, for Manicheans, man’s “‘enslaved will’ cannot choose – it is damned until unilaterally released” by God’s own initiative (pg.14). In summation, Wilson notes that all these philosophies “requires the divine being to unilaterally awaken a “dead soul” who then only can respond to the divine person (pg.16).”
In conclusion, Wilson notes (pg.17-18) that all these philosophies: “require divine micromanagement,” “substitute the Jewish and Christian residual ‘imago Dei’, “teach humanities ‘free will’ was destroyed or died,” “a unilateral infusion of grace, faith and/or love.” All these presuppositions “micromanaging providence” merits those who are “elect and divine.”
Chapter 2:
Wilson holds that the earliest Christian Fathers (95-400 CE.) unanimously affirmed “relational divine eternal predetermination.” God chose or elected persons by His foreknowledge of their individual free choice. What is critical in Wilson’s definition is that he states that all the Christian Fathers before Augustine had this definition of ‘predestination’ (pg.19). Wilson then proceeds to give ample examples from the “Apostolic Fathers and Apologists (95-180 CE)” in the Epistle to Barnabas (100-120 CE), The Epistle of Diognetus (120-170 CE), Justin Martyr and Tatian (pg.21), Theophilus, Athenagoras, and Melito (pg.22) and “Christian Authors (180-250 CE)” like Irenaeus of Lyons (pg.24), Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian (pg.26), Origen of Alexandria (pg.27), and Cyprian and Novatian (pg.29). Some noteworthy Christian authors in a later dispensation (250-400 CE), Hillary of Poitiers (pg.30), the Cappadocian Fathers: Gregory Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nyssen (pg.31); as well as Methodius, Theodore, and Ambrose, all held to this definition of predestination. Wilson concludes that for hundreds of years before Augustine, “the loving Christian God allowed humans to exercise their God-given free will (pg.35).” This is clearly not a new perspective Wilson is contending for and contemporary scholars have recognised these elements influencing the earliest Christian Fathers as well. Theologian, George Park Fisher wrote:
“In harmony with the foregoing views as to human freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek Fathers.”[1]
There is a general assumption by some Calvinist scholars that the t.u.l.i.p. system was evident in the earliest Christian dispensation[2] (90-400 CE) especially from notable scholar John Gill, but upon closer scrutiny of the use of some of these earlier fathers this assumption seems to falter.[3] Puritan scholar C. Matthew McMahon also gives an excellent account of Augustine’s ‘Calvinism’ in his own doctoral thesis[4] and a conversation with Wilson’s publication will definitely be a solemn endeavour if there was ever a possibility for conversation. In my own opinion I affirm what lay scholar Jacques More noted, when he assumes that the earliest Fathers did not emphatically explicate the five points of Calvinism and any such a notion is but a long shot. He writes:
“I received a letter from a believer of unconditional predestination which stated: ‘Until Augustine, nobody doubted the Calvinistic view he propounded, so it was not until it was questioned did he have to write it down in detail, just as all the great creeds have been written down in defense of the faith when various heretics have come along thinking they know better.’ I understand the strong feeling this Christian brother has in defending what he believes. It is sad, however, since to me this seems more out of a desire to believe it than out of a reading of the evidence, and the aim of this leaflet is to share some of the clear pointers that the early church did not have unconditional predestination as a creed.” [5]
Chapter 3:
In this chapter, Wilson attempts to show that Augustine’s earlier traditional theology (386-411 CE) was aimed to refute any Manichean understanding of ‘predestination and free will (pg.37).” I think Wilson is right in that Augustine placed a high tax on free will, defending the understanding of God against any deterministic causal evident in both gnostic and Manichaean philosophies (pg.39). When you read Augustine, I agree, none of Augustine’s later, “gnostic-Manichaean divine unilateral determinism,” could be found in the first 25 years (pg.43-44) except for two instances (cf. “Lib. Arb.3.47-54 (On Free Will)” & “The Letter to Bishop Simplicianus”). Renowned scholar Richard W. Muller gives an excellent appraisal of the first Christian Fathers up until Augustine and shows a clear difference in their theological assumptions about God’s Sovereignty and foreknowledge. Muller wrote;
“In the tradition prior to Augustine’s letter to Simplician, Christian writers grounded God’s Sovereignty in God’s foreknowledge.”[6]
What is clear from Muller’s thesis is that the pre-Augustinian Fathers believed that God predestined mankind informed by His foreknowledge of man’s free will. An Augustinian definition of ‘predestination’ introduced the fact that God elects some men based on His will. This is a crucial difference with numerous implications.
Chapter 4:
Wilson shows that Augustine reverted to his earlier “non-free Free Will” (pg.58) views in 412 CE because of his conflict with Pelagius (pg.57). When Pelagius challenged him because the Church baptizes infants, Augustine concluded that infants were baptized “because of their inherent guilt (reatus) from Adam’s first sin (pg. 58).” Augustine admittedly relied upon the Manichaean concept of ‘total inability’ in infants because of their inherent guilt, needing God’s unilateral choice for true freedom of the will (pg.59). Wilson quotes Ballock (1998), remarking that “Augustine admitted he had abandoned the centuries-old Christian doctrine of human free-choice”[7] as do famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan[8] (pg.60). Wilson concludes,
“Augustine now teaches, “God foreordains human wills… God gives the gift of perseverance to only a few baptized infants (pg.63).”
Wilson shows that Augustine now holds that “only those elect who believed in Christ had their sins forgiven” and not that Christ had died for everyone, as he earlier held (pg.66).” Other scholars agree with Wilson and distinguished scholar Henry Chadwick (“The Early Christian Church”) observed that Augustine’s contemporaries accused him of this Manichean influence:
“Julian bishop of Eclanum expressed that Augustine was causing trouble because he ‘brought his Manichee ways of thinking into the church… and was denying St Paul’s clear teaching that God wills all men to be saved.” [9]
Chapter 5:
Wilson goes on to illustrate how Augustine reverted to a Manichaean interpretation of Scriptures showing that “personal faith was no longer required (pg.71)” and “every man is… spiritually dead and, guilty, and damned at birth (pg.74).” Wilson noted that Augustine drew upon limited scripture to validate his new doctrine of original sin [cf. John 3:5, Rom.5:12, 1 Tim.2:4, John 14:6 and 16:65, Ps.51:5, Eph.2:3,8-9]. On 1 Timothy 2:4 Augustine changes the words “God wills” to “provides an opportunity,” or as Wilson notes, God provides “different (unequal) opportunities (pg.75).” In John 14:6 & 6:65, Wilson shows that Augustine uses these passages using “the Manichaean interpretations to prove his new total inability/incapability for human faith (pg.76).
As for Psalm 51:5, Augustine and the earliest Church Fathers perception follows that “everyone born of a woman becomes a sinner in this world, without fail (pg.76).” But later (412 CE) Augustine used this passage to show that “babies are born damned from Adam’s Sin” (pg.76) and the same with Ephesians (2:3 and 2:8-9) where Augustine adds that babies are born “under wrath and damnation inherited from Adam’s sin with no ability to respond to God as grown adults (pg.77).” Wilson mentions in passing that Augustine also taught “proxy salvation” in that someone else’s faith can save you” (pg.78).
Chapter 6:
In Chapter 6, Wilson now shows the determinism and predestination Augustine taught and how it was “precisely the manner in which Stoics, Gnostics, and Manichaeans presented their versions of determinism (pg.82).” Wilson then shows the essential elements Stoicism in that “souls have neither free will…” and “we are free to choose only what our corrupt will determines.” Further, for Platonists, “providence controls every minuscule cosmic detail; nevertheless, the One (God) provides limited freedom for some events and persons.” Wilson laments, “Augustine’s later theology incorporated all of these pagan ideas” (pg.83-84). The early Church held to the idea that God was a relational entity, “relational and responsive to human choices” (pg.86). The Church, therefore, rejected Stoic and Manichaean ‘unilateral determinism’ (pg.87) because the Judeo-Christian God “chose persons for salvation based upon his foreknowledge of “future” human choices” (pg.88).
Chapter 7:
Wilson gets to the “when” and “why” of Augustine’s reversion to determinism and recognizes three separate stages describing the stages of salvation.
- Stage 1: (386-394 CE) Augustine’s acceptance of “foreseen merit of works.”
- Stage 2: (395-411 CE) Augustine’s affirmation of “no foreseen merit of works but only God’s foreknowledge of faith alone.”
- Stage 3: (412-430 CE) Augustine’s “Divine unilateral predetermination of individual eternal destinies (pg.91).”
Wilson tracks Augustine’s regress and communicates ten factors that influenced his final systematic theology (pg.95). Some of these points could be deemed speculative, but the fact of Augustine’s perceived change in his theology leaves me with little doubt as to his end destination. Wilson delimit the most prominent reasons for Augustine’s modification of theology to ardent determinism, pointing to three key elements: “infant baptism, Stoicism, and Manicheanism (pg.97).” Serious scholars of Church History and Systematic theology cannot but recognize a definite progression (or regression for others) in the theology of Augustine over his lifetime that was seemingly influenced by his own given environment and contextual challenges.
Conclusion:
The idea that Augustine adopted ideas from various philosophies is nothing new. L.H. Hackstaff in his introduction to “Saint Augustine: On Free Choice of the Will” writes:
“Indeed, it is not too great an exaggeration to say that Neo-Platonism provided Augustine and the Christian Platonists who followed him with the theoretical substructure on which their theology was built. It seems that Augustine never abandoned the Platonistic matrix of his Christian theology.”
Similarly, Peter Nathan[10] writes:
“During the course of Augustine’s lifetime, the blurred boundaries between Christianity and paganism, and between faith and philosophy, were redrawn. Paradoxically, this created a world in which paganism seemed simply to disappear.”
Nathan adds:
“Augustine’s adoption of the new philosophy [dualism] was wholehearted. The new world of dualism aroused in him a desire to retreat from society to a life focused on the pursuit of the spiritual and, with it, of the truth he believed philosophy could provide.”
It is important to note that Wilson is not claiming that all Calvinists are Gnostics, Stoics, or even Manichaeans. This will simply commit the genetic fallacy which is clearly not the central axis of this book. In my estimation Wilson is trying to show the contemporary influence that prejudiced Augustine’s definitions and theology about God’s Sovereignty and his meaning of predestination moving away from the earliest Christian communities. Some scholars have attempted to show that there is a disparity between Augustine and Calvinism, but this is done by looking at the earlier espoused ideas of this Church father.[11] Other popular ministers have shown that John Calvin was definitely influenced by Augustine’s later ideas.[12] I think Wilson is attempting to reclaim the earliest definition the Church Fathers held about predestination and the free volition of man as reduced by the Sovereign God’s will. In closing, this book has challenged my conceptions as a scholar and senior lecturer of Systematic theology and Church History that is involved fulltime with two Christian seminaries where we always try to esteem the very ‘solas’ of the reformation.
Selah,
Rudolph P. Boshoff.
Sources:
[1] History of Christian Doctrine. T&T Clark. Pg.165.
[2] https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/?fbclid=IwAR3nZ6VWWoFueNQdD7hngKI_2_MGr0i_rQNgykvFYHjJ-unCe6uHGe21WSc
[3] The scope of this article will not look at the merits of these supposed deduced concepts.
[4] http://www.puritanpublications.com/store/products/augustines-calvinism-the-doctrines-of-grace-in-augustines-writings-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/
[5] http://jarom.net/greekdad.php
[6] Abraham’s Dice: Chance and providence in the monotheistic traditions. Pg.150. R.W. Muller’s article “Chance and providence in earliest Christianity.”
[7] “Sin” in the Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity, New York, NY: Routledge, 1998).
[8] The Christian Tradition: A History of the development of Doctrine, vol.1. University of Chicago Press. Pg.278-280.
[9] The Early Christian Church, Pg.233.
[10] https://www.vision.org/augustines-poisoned-chalice-385
[11] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/calvinists-are-not-augustinian/?fbclid=IwAR2ZFlYVYOt9aDF0B18lZsFwfpsUY7nBllbcolq-x7HGyDs219kzr2PTFv0
[12] https://www.thebereancall.org/content/july-2012-classic?fbclid=IwAR3be3MF3-ldtsbpcQ9KfEzW93ROXS4dpasnzew2pQaXZTJ53d7Wg1w_958
DUPIED is STUPIED.
Stupid?….
This is a fair, scholarly and thorough review by Pastor Boshoff. I hope it will be read by many.
I would love to see a review by Pastor Boshoff of Dr Ken Wilson’s entire thesis which has been published in book form and is available in PDF format.
https://www.amazon.com/Augustines-Conversion-Traditional-Choice-non-Free/dp/3161557530
Hi Paul, thanks for the comment. I wish I could afford the complete thesis of Dr Wilson to review 🙂 Excellent book though
For starters, Ken Wilson badly. misrepresented Pelikan’s Christian Tradition volume 1 on the claim of Augustine’s infant baptismal salvation and original sin views being pagan novelties.
Wilson’s The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism on scholar Jaroslav Pelikan’s Christian Tradition volume 1
“The famous scholar Pelikan appropriately lamented Augustine’s rejection of traditional Christian theology and Augustine’s feeble excuse for doing so.”
Jaroslav Pelikan’s Christian Tradition volume 1 page 292:
“Augustine, who learned from Ambrose to draw the anthropological implications 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 respon-sible. ‘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.’”
And on page 289, Pelikan wrote:
“It is probably to Ambrose, who in turn became the men-
tor of Augustine on these matters, that we should attrib-
ute the definitive establishment of a firm ‘causal relation between the virginal conception and the sinlessness of Christ. … the combination of the ideas of the propagation of original sin through sexual union and of the sinlessness of Christ as a consequence of his virginal con-
ception.’ To be free from sin, Christ had to be free from the normal mode of conception: this was the conclusion that Ambrose seemed to draw from Isaiah 53:8 (Vulg.): ‘Who will tell the story of [enarrabit] his having been begotten [generationem]?’ The chief proof text was, however, Psalm SI:5: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ These words were spoken by David, ‘who was regarded as righteous beyond others.’ If Christ was to be called truly righteous, it hadto be !for no other reason than that, as one who was born of a virgin, he was not bound in any way by the ordinances against a guilty mode of having been begotten.’”
Thanks for the comment!
Working on book review. So far…
Ken Wilson wrote in The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism on scholar Jaroslav Pelikan’s Christian Tradition volume 1:
“The famous scholar Pelikan appropriately lamented Augustine’s rejection of traditional Christian theology and Augustine’s feeble excuse for doing so.”
Jaroslav Pelikan’s Christian Tradition volume 1 page 292:
“Augustine, who learned from Ambrose to draw the anthropological implications 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 respon-sible. ‘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.’”
And on page 289, Pelikan wrote:
“It is probably to Ambrose, who in turn became the mentor of Augustine on these matters, that we should attribute the definitive establishment of a firm ‘causal relation between the virginal conception and the sinlessness of Christ. … the combination of the ideas of the propagation of original sin through sexual union and of the sinlessness of Christ as a consequence of his virginal conception.’ To be free from sin, Christ had to be free from the normal mode of conception: this was the conclusion that Ambrose seemed to draw from Isaiah 53:8 (Vulg.): ‘Who will tell the story of [enarrabit] his having been begotten [generationem]?’ The chief proof text was, however, Psalm SI:5: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ These words were spoken by David, ‘who was regarded as righteous beyond others.’ If Christ was to be called truly righteous, it hadto be !for no other reason than that, as one who was born of a virgin, he was not bound in any way by the ordinances against a guilty mode of having been begotten.’”
Yet Wilson said Pelikan agreed with these claims by Wilson of Augustine’s views of original sin and infant baptismal salvation being novel and pagan:
“Augustine brought into Christianity the Manichaean concepts of total inability (infants cannot make a choice), damnable sin at birth, and unconditional election (God chooses unilaterally). This logical deduction from infants being baptized was then extrapolated to adult humans-human choice was unnecessary. Note that the basis for this logical argument was the assumed salvific power of water baptism for an infant combined with the Stoic philosophy of divine meticulous control of all events.
We do not possess even one prior extant Christian writing that taught these three pagan ideas.”
Complete opposite of what Pelikan said on where Augustine got his views of inherited guilt and infant baptism to save from.
That wasn’t the only misuse of another scholar.
Wilson passed Stephen Cooper off in Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism as saying Victorinus influenced pre-412 Augustine on grace that was in agreement with Wilson (meaning rejection of unconditional election).
What Stephen Cooper wrote in Marius Victorinus’ Commentary on Galatians:
“What is now of relevance to Augustine’s position is that it was thus not something completely new in the history of Latin theology. Marius Victor-inns … had around the middle of the fourth century already spoken of justification from faith and against all works-righteousness; he had already taught an unalloyed predestination and activity of God prior to and in our will. That speaks against seeing Augustine’s doctrine of grace as a simple rediscovery of Paul.”
More Stephen Cooper:
“Victorinus never says that the predestining of souls involves divine consultation of their future righteousness; rather, whatever holiness souls come to possess is clearly stated to be the result of God’s predestination.”
That statement by definition is unconditional election. Wilson misrepresented Cooper as he did Pelikan.
Wilson claimed that Augustine’s Magnitudes on the Soul was in 405 when it was in 387-8 (as his dissertation stated), so he can pass off claim (through misreading of it), that Augustine (and prior church fathers) still didn’t know why infant baptism was practiced even decades in the faith, up to his debate with Pelagius in 412 so Wilson can create a false narrative that Augustine invented infant baptismal salvation and his own version of original sin to provide a previously unexplained practice of infant baptism.
Wilson passed Augustine’s pre-412 Psalm 51.10 exposition as holding to traditional Christian view of Psalm 51:5 than in 412 a more Manichaean view of Psalm 51:5 via citing the passage for infant baptism:
“ This text was cited by numerous prior Christians in the traditional Christian sense of inevitable human sinfulness. Before 412 CE, Augustine cited it similarly (e.g., Conf.1.7; Enar. Ps.51.10). His early use follows the Jewish and early Christian interpretation that “(Ps.51:7; 50:7), merely means that everyone born of a woman becomes a sinner in this world, without fail.”147) Augustine’s more Manichaean interpretation (babies are born damned from Adam’s sin) first appears in 412 CE in Pecc. merit.1.34 and 3.13 (along-side Job 14:4 supporting infant baptism and infant participation in the Eucharist.”
What Augustine wrote in his pre-412 work debunking both the claims that 1) he had no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 and 2) he didn’t quote Psalm 51:5 for infant baptism in this writing (or any other writing) prior to 412:
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 knowboth by the Baptism of Christ that sinsare 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.
Wilson claimed that Augustine’s Magnitudes on the Soul was in 405 when it was in 387, so he can pass claim (through misreading of it), that Augustine (and prior church fathers) still didn’t know why infant baptism was practiced even decades in the faith, up to his debate with Pelagius in 412 can create a false narrative that Augustine that year invented infant baptismal salvation and his own version of original sin to provide a previously unexplained practice of infant baptism (ignoring the fact that every church father up to Augustine, including Pelagius, affirmed infant baptismal salvation even if not all of them don’t have the same understanding as Augustine as to the why).
His claim that Fortunatus the Manichaean quoted John 6:44 (or John 6:65) is completely false. And he passed off Augustine’s later works in the chapters as referenced by Wilson as quoting John 14:6. That is false as well.
He also claimed Augustine invented faith is a gift exegesis of Ephesians 2:8 (via supposedly inventing infant baptismal salvation) out of Manichaeanism. False again. Jerome and Chrysostom also stated faith is a gift of God in exegesis of Ephesians 2:8 coming from freewill synergistic perspective long before 412. He knew that since he referenced Jerome’s Ephesians. Huge omission to push a narrative.
He falsely passed off Petilian the Donatist, as determinist, opposed by pre-412 Augustine on John 6:44. His dissertation even listed pages he is on as examples of how Manichaeans and Gnostics cited John 6:44 before Augustine. (Real egregious error as is passing off Fortunatus as quoting John 6:44 on the pages of his dissertation to push that narrative.)
He falsely passed off Augustine (and prior fathers) as having no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412. Besides Psalm 51.10 exposition mentioned above, Augustine gave detailed explanations for infant baptism as seeing it if for salvation prior to 412 in On Baptism Letter 98 (Wilson’s dissertation falsely claimed it offered no explanation for infant baptism when it spent paragraphs arguing inherited guilt and John 3:5 need for baptismal salvation, even for infants).
Wilson claimed Augustine’s writing in 420 as his first defense of infant baptism and before that he rejected baptism is necessary to salvation view of John 3:5 because he saw the thief as saved without baptism in On Baptism. Besides the fact no one denied the thief was saved (no matter how diehard they are on baptismal salvation), Wilson omitted to mention that Augustine in the chapter right before the chapter he is quoted by Wilson on the thief, Augustine quoted John 3:5 three times, each time seeing the text each time as baptismal salvation necessity text. He allowed the thief to be saved as baptism of desire exception to baptismal salvation necessity rule, not as denial of that rule.
What’s egregious is in the footnote, Wilson passed off physical birth as the historic view of John 3:5 water, and Augustine’s baptismal view to John 3:5 water as baptism post-412 as novelty from Manichaeanism, Gnosticism etc, when the exact opposite is true. Zero church fathers sided with Wilson or disagreed with Augustine there.
He passed off Augustine’s view of Philippians 1:6-7 as out about perseverance in salvation as novel, saying financial participation view of the text was taught before him. It is a repeat of his claim in his dissertation where he falsely claimed Ambrosiaster denied perseverance in salvation and affirmed financial participation view of the text to accuse Augustine of “Manichaean” novelty.
He passed off Origen as in three different works as offering Psalm 51:5 refers to all of us will become sinners, not literally referring to infants as sinful at birth.
What these writings by Origen said:
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.”
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.”
Against Celsus 7.50:
“ 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.
The way he quoted Clement of Alexandria combatting gifted faith view is wrong in multiple fronts. Clement was combatting in Stromata 2.3 view of faith as gift by nature, not by external grace of God. Also, he was opposing Basilides, not Marcion. And finally, Wilson withheld the fact that Clement cited various philosophies (including but not limited to Platonism) the next two chapters as influences on his views of freewill faith. That would have debunk Wilson’s narrative that Augustine introduced pagan philosophies into grace and Freewill theology of the early church.
The fact that Wilson will fabricate, omit and misquote evidence continually in his writings (including his dissertation as well) to slime Augustine say a lot more about him then Augustine.
I might like to point out that his claim in the book that the Orthodox reject Augustine as a church father is demonstrably false. They see him as such but not one of few doctors of the church.