Ken Wilson's Book Against Calvinism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- A lengthy discussion of the nature of argumentation and scholarship in Ken Wilson’s The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
#review #KenWilson #shocked
I spent a week with Dr. M. Haykin studying Jonathan Edwards and the puritans. HIs opening statement was " If you are a protestant Christian then your faith contains Augustinian theology . Whether you like it or not. "
and Aquinas and Cyprian etc...
The only TH-cam channel where a “highlight” is 40 min long lol. Love your work brother.
For me, it doesn't matter what people believed in the past. What matters is what the Bible teaches. I read it through, openly and honestly, three times without any commentary, and came away a six-day creationist, doctrines of Grace (aka Calvinism), Complementarian. Sola Scriptura, the great heresy slayer.
This has to be one of the most uninformed comments I have ever read. You only believe the so called ‘doctrines of grace’ because of Augustine.
@@danielshaolin6053you are ignorant and incapable of understanding what he said.
Yeah, I’ll take “That’s not how you got there” for $500, Alex.
This is the same field of thought as "The Holy Spirit teaches me what the Bible says, so I don't need to study it."
Ken Wilson’s work exposing the Gnostic Manichaean Augustinian roots of the Calvinist heresy is awesome! ✝️📖😇
Except that it is totally revisionism history on baptism pretending to be mainly about Calvinism.
@@Tron4JC
Have you never been baptized? You better hurry up and get baptized before you die.
@@oldglory6922 lol
As long as you do not challenge what you read and never do your own research. On a FB debate group about Calvinism and Arminianism-every time the accusation comes up about Calvinism or Augustine teaching Gnosticism or other similar subjects, I ask, what kind of determinism is taught in Manichaeanism or Gnosticism in general? Never get any good answers or resources. In my own research and study, there is only one type of determinism I can find being taught and that is Astrology. Now, I remember reading in Augustine’s Confessions where he attacked Manichaean Astrology. Unless one can show me what other types of determinism was taught by Gnostics-if I find nothing else, what should my conclusion be?
@@oldglory6922 What is funny about this is Mani’s parents were also involved with a Gnostic sect whose main emphasis is Baptism. So do we go accuse Independent Fundamental Baptists and Southern Baptists of teaching and practicing Gnosticism.
James White: We see this fleshed out..
Manichaeus: HERESY!
Thank you for your refutation Dr White.
He didn’t refute anything 😂
@@danielshaolin6053 what didn't he refute?
@@danielshaolin6053 U mad?
Ken Wilson has never read Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Caesarius of Arles, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus or Andrew of Crete, right?
Accepting that extant fragmentary documentation is generally representative of beliefs at the time is not unreasonable, in fact, it is the only evidentiary basis available to us and the means by which most of history is established.
That would be the case if all evidence shows uniformity, yet you dont have that in what we already possess. Thus any proposition that affirms the contrary appeals to special pleading or arguments from silence.
For those of us who didn't know how to spell Manichaeism...
Also, check out the Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Dr White is correct in saying that Manachian Gnosticism bears no resemblance to Christianity and I think that is the point Dr Wilson's book is making. Manachianism is much more aligned with Calvinism (or vice-versa) than with Christianity.
And by that standards, Ken Wilson’s denials of baptismal salvation are more align with Gnosticism rather than with Christianity regardless of his attempts to rewrite history on that.
@Thomas Thieme The 2 problems that you have is that 1 Clement talks about the “number of the elect” which is reformed/Calvinism language and that letter was before manachianism. Your second problem is that Calvinism is Christianity, that’s the point of James White.
40 minutes and he never addresses the actual subject. Wow.
Tell me about it
Guess you didn't watch the video.
I have been buying books about Manichaeanism and Gnosticism the last few weeks and it seems the only ideal taught in those sects that come anywhere close to teaching determinism is Astrology. If I remember correctly, Astrology is one of those subjects that Augustine attacked in his Confessions.
Romans 8 - 11 is all about election of a people: Israel
rather then an election of individuals.
Eph. 1 and 2 same story.
Acts 16:14 Jerm 31 Phip 1:29
Nah
Except Rom 9:22-24 refutes the nations-only interpretation. Sorry.
Ah here we see the excellent strategy of just claiming the parts of the bible you don't like are only about Israel, even though those texts say nothing about Israel. Just say you hate what the Bible says, at least then you're being honest.
@@danielomitted1867 No, that is a false accusation.
When the Bible says, Israel, my chosen ones, my servant, children of the kingdom, etc. I really read Israel.
The people spoken of in Rom. 8 are the same as those in Rom. 9. The piece is a literary unit.
In Rom. 9:4 I read: the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.
How about that debate?
So many logical fallacies and calls to his own authority. Intellectual haughtiness, including gleefully reminding everyone that someone from another religion hates him (Stravinskas). James is not representing us well.
Lol…
And Ken Wilson is?
A great and honest book against the false doctrine of Calvinism!
Not for anyone who cares about substance. If you like endless assertions and rhetoric then sure its great
True!
Honest? You call a book riddled with misquotes and false facts honest?
@@Tron4JC Yea that Piper, Macarthur, and James White books, are those things.
I agree.
@@danielomitted1867 Yea that Piper, Macarthur, and James White books, are those things.
I agree.
40 minutes and nothing was addressed. Why won’t you debate Wilson on this?
You didn't saw the video then
Suuuure, Jan...
The book is only a summary of the dissertation. Dr. Wilson to asked scholars to critique that body of work rather than a summary written for laymen. The attitude of Calvinist's alone is enough to warrant rejection.
Attitude warrants rejection over substance?
The dissertation claimed Augustine invented baptismal view of John 3:5 to replace physical birth view of water. That is enough to discredit it.
@@Tron4JC no, it’s not!
@@johndisalvo6283 totally.
Zero church fathers prior to Augustine saw John 3:5 as anything other than baptism, not physical birth for water. It is embarrassing if there was one church father who affirmed baptismal view of John 3.5 prior to Augustine. But when you have countless examples of church Father writings affirming the text refers to baptismal salvation, and Wilson makes it out to be a novelty of Augustine, that makes it extra worse.
@@Tron4JC Augusteen is “TheFather” of Catholicism!
Ken Wilson is so much against Reformed theology that he is blinded by it. There are those who are so much passionately for it that they are a little blind sided by it, they read no other theologians but Reformed which is not wise.
Ken Wilson is on a dangerous path in his book he claims Augustine invented original sin, if he truly rejects original sin, this goes the same for Leighton Flowers who is heading towards becoming a Pelagian with his rejection of Arminian prevenient grace (he's done a video on the topic).
Or Eastern Orthodoxy 🤯 lol
@Amy K everything you said there can be said about Ken Wilson and his fans.
Read the book before commenting.
@@John3.36 I have read bits and pieces of it.
Do you study Church history or do you read it through the lens of Ken Wilson?
@@reformedcatholic457 I read it through the lens of Augustine, the only church father of course. :)
I can't think of a more man centered doctrine then calvinism.
"Most of the world goes to hell but I'm the special elect chosen before creation "
The Bible never means what it says and everything always comes back to knowledge the calvinist has that isn't available to everyone else or described in scripture.
They follow a man’s exalting tradition of John Calvin.
A true Christian trusts God to perfectly convey His Word and that His Word is true.
A true Christian doesn’t need to add "kinds" or "types" at the end of sentences that disagree with Calvinist theology.
A true Christian doesn’t need to declare God has a secret will that contradicts scripture to uphold Reformed theology.
This is the difference between the Bible believer and the Calvinist.
One of the main points of Calvinism is that the elect were predestined to be saved prior to them believing. This would mean that salvation is secured outside of Christ!
So how can a Calvinist who's totally depraved be assured of salvation without relying on totally depraved faculties.
A Calvinist say they are no longer totally depraved.
Ok well how do you know?
The faculties that were at least once totally depraved testify to your new heart?
OK how do you know your totally depraved heart isn't deceiving you?
The Mormon is deceived. Why aren't you? Because of the good things you do?
That's human experience that must be processed by a totally depraved heart with no way of knowing if your heart is changed unless your totally depraved heart tells you it's new.
So how does the totally depraved individual know Christ died for him and he's therefore been unconditionally elected without having to rely on human experience processed with a heart and mind that are totally depraved?
Nothing you said is true
The first "god" of Gnosticism and Neoplatonic philosophy was the all powerful one and Dr. Wilson acknowledges the person of Scripture's Most High is different in the respect to the Creator. Dr. White is doing is conflating the differences to gloss over the similitudes to dismiss their impact on his Calvinist tenents of faith that have been falsely construed to pose as pre Augustinian Christianity.
Still at the end of the day augustine got his pagan views from pagan religion I think the book exposes that and that's what he was accused of at the time. Is quite clear when you read the Bible you have to jump through hoops to make it say what you wanted to say it's a stoic gnostic manichaean doctrine. Need to get out there and preach the real gospel repentance toward God and Faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit not this dry reform thinking deadness. It matters how we preach and our Walk With God that we could persuade men to flee from The Wrath to come
Excellent comment!
You do know that using these types of arguments, Ken Wilson would be a Gnostic back in the early church days for his denials of baptismal regeneration and Eucharistic real presence, not to make his free grace dispensationalist views?
What "stoic gnostic manichean" doctrine are you talking about exactly? I ask this because none of you people can substantiate the absurd claims you keep making.
@@danielomitted1867 DETERMINISM
@@johndisalvo6283 Unless you are an open theist you are a determinist. You can be an atheist and still be a determinist. What is manichaean determinism? What is calvinistic determinism? I dont think you know. Theres no singular God with a decree who can decree all things in manicheanism.
The believability of Wilson's book requires that his readers have never studied the Patriarchs for themselves, nor any of the numerous works that speak on the topic that Wilson claims to be an expert that well demonstrate his premise to be an outright lie. For example, in John Gill's book, "The Cause of God and Truth," written in the 1730's as a response to Dr. Whitby's "Discourse on the Five Points" which is similar to Wilson's work in several respects, he demonstrates from numerous patristic authors, many of them predating Augustine, that the doctrines now commonly referred to as the doctrines of grace can be seen in the patristics going back all the way to the Apostles.
Wilson's book is a case study of what happens to scholarship whenever someone has an axe to grind, and what makes it doubly bad is that there is a segment within academia that are either ignorant of the facts themselves, or are simply willing to forego the truth in order to protect their sacred cows.
John Gill is just as an unreliable source as Ken Wilson though for different reasons.
@@Tron4JC
Maybe, maybe not, but his book does demonstrate that Wilson's isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
@@lawrencestanley8989 no, it doesn’t since it misquotes and twists church fathers badly.
And I say this as a very harsh critic of Ken Wilson’s work.
The church fathers weren’t nowhere near Calvinists the way Gill try to twist them into. They weren’t even monergists but synergists to the core. And I say this as a monergist.
Gill does to the fathers on grace and freewill what Ken Wilson did to them on baptism and original sin.
@@Tron4JC
I recognize that the church fathers were inconsistent with one another, they were internally inconsistent, and much of what they had to say was written in crayon. Even John Gill said of some of them, “…served very much to corrupt the simplicity of the gospel; for though mended the Platonic philosophy, it marred the Christian doctrine; and laid the foundation for Arianism and Pelagianism, which in after-times to greatly disturbed the church of God.”
Furthermore, nowhere in his book “The Cause of God and Truth” does Gill accuse the patriarchs of Calvinism, after all, the patriarchs that he referenced were pre-Augustinian, so to make the statement “the church fathers weren’t nowhere near Calvinists the way Gill try to twist them into,” is a poor understanding of Gill’s aim of the book, and quite frankly, makes me doubt that you have even read his work since you seem to miss the point that he was attempting to make.
From the introduction, page xv-xvi, “Part four consists of an intriguing array of pre-Augustinian patristic texts that lend historical support to the system (of grace) as consistent with the continued witness of the church in every age. Gill is wisely reserved in his claims at this point. He does not attempt to show that a coherent scheme of the doctrines of grace was taught by the pre-Augustinians. He freely acknowledges that many errors were taught by them and ‘never were more absurd notions, or more horrid and blasphemous doctrines maintained’ on many subjects than in the ante-Nicene period. These were men who, in many ways, should not be called the Fathers of the church, but the children of the church, since their understanding of the entire scheme of redemption was far inferior to the Reformers. The early writers were much more skilled at demolishing pagan notions and Jewish misrepresentations than they were ‘in stating, explaining, and defending the Christian faith.’ The doctrinal error about which they were most concerned was the person of Christ. The doctrine of grace had never been disputed and, thus, they were under no necessity of troubling themselves to solve this difficult problem. Had it arisen in the Pelagian form earlier, they would, doubtless, have dealt with it.”
Here's the point…
“Foundations for Augustinianism, however, were laid, and the Augustinian system was not created ex nihilo. Gill is concerned to demonstrate that the foundation was clear and, though interspersed with ill-stated and sometimes erroneous ideas (sometimes even contradictions which Gill had no intention of seeking to reconcile), it was certain that ;the Arminians have no great reason to boast of antiquity on their side.”
This is GREAT!
White will not admit that HE knew anything so he looked it up on Wiki, and because he uses Wiki as his source, he states how good Wikipedia is on this subject. How can it be otherwise? Dr Jimmy is using it.
Now he tries to misdirect the fact that Mani and his followers (that included Augustine!!!) believed that Christianity held to strict determinism.
NOT ONE THING about their beliefs on other things is in question here.
NOT HOW they formulated that idea.
NOT which source materials were used.
Not any other claim about them takes away from the fact that Augustine was taught this by the Manichaebs and imported that view into the Afro-European Church!
To simplify it, you can see it like the Miller Light ''Tastes Great/Less filling'' commercials, pretending that there is an argument, where none exist.
Mr White's speech on Ken Wilson's book was incredible dumb, unbelievable lack of knowledge and poor evidence. What a disaster. Totally unexpected from him ,who proclaims to be an Scholar. Such a crappie argumentation against Ken Wilson's book. He didn't read the full text - about 372 pages, only the Amazon's book which also has a disclaimer about not to be use as an academic book,and anyone who wants to read the whole academic text must get the full version. What a fool is Mr. White.
Why is James White a master of Straw man attacks on his TH-cam channel? Why would Ken Wilson talk about how many gods the Gnostics etc believed in if the point of the book is to discuss how Gnosticism influenced it's Christian converts? bad start James
probably because he is claiming that gnosticism influenced Christianity and it's relevant?
Probably because the sovereignty of a singular God is kind of a big part in calvinism and is none existent in manichaeanism.
“Dr” white gives himself away with the ad hominems, hyperbolic statements, misrepresentations etc
I used to love listening and watching but his bread and butter is logical fallacies, misrepresentation and hiding behind the moderator in debates
When are you going to debate Dr. Wilson?
Never he’ll get killed lol Dr. Wilson said he would debate White and White never responded
@@nazinas21 Yes he would get destroyed.
He would be dismantled
James White loves to Ad Hom. So sad.
That’s ironic since Ken Wilson’s dissertation is ad hom filled against Augustine.
j 336 right
When you have no argument for what's being said you just cry fallacy 😂
@@danielomitted1867 Your argument is that Ad Hom is an Ad Hom. So Ad Hom.
@@John3.36 not even close to what I said. Work on your reading comprehension skills.
The book’s a joke. I became a Calvinist years before knowing anything about Augustine from reading Scripture. The fickle God of the Arminians seems foreign to me.
Ken Wilson made these false assertions throughout his interviews I have seen such as 1) no one knew why infant baptism was practiced when it appeared in 200s, 2) Augustine didn’t know why infant baptism was practiced in 400, 3) Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian rebutted Manichaeans (first two died before Mani was even born, Tertullian died around same time as his birth), 4) Pelagians opposed infant baptism so that’s why Augustine and them originally debated, 5) Augustine invented baptismal salvation and regeneration as a result whereas no one held to that before, 6) popes and Jerome then rejected Augustine’s supposed infant baptismal regeneration and original sin novelties, 7) Jerome and Chrysostom rejected initial faith is a gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8, 8 ) Augustine didn’t hold to such view until 412 AD and after, 9) Ambrose (Augustine’s mentor) rejected infant baptismal regeneration from original sin guilt, 10) all church fathers prior to Augustine held to all infants who died go straight to heaven even without baptism, 11) Orthodox rejected seeing Augustine as saint, 12) only Manichaeans and Gnostics agree with post-412 AD Augustine’s interpretations of Bible texts Wilson listed
All this delving into the details of gnostisism. When all the book said was that Augustine shared the deterministic view. He can't acknowledge that simple similarity. I love Dr White, he is at the very least consistent.
edit: So much nitpicking as well. when someone Criticizing Calvinism says that man can't respond to God, we mean in a positive way and repenting. I don't hate anyone but I hate that James white can't answer any real questions.
2nd edit: For the record, I don't care about freewill. I was on the fence about it as an atheist. I care about the authority of scripture. It seems all of Calvinism stems from an attachment of a theology of predestination before even opening the Bible. I'd love to be shown I'm wrong from scripture.
The primary reason most Calvinist get there is the nature of God (easiest places to point you to is Psalm 145, Isaiah 40-48, Job 38-42) when He predestined us to be conformed to the image of His Son (Ephesians 1 and Romans 8) and then the nature of man as a hater of God from birth, un able to please God until He does a work in us, that our heart is so wicked who can understand it, that every desire of man is wicked, that we were conceived in sin.
@Jondoe_04 Sooo so much isegesis in that paragraph.
Did he predestine us to believe, or did he predestined us to adoption? Adoption had a slightly different meaning back then. Adoption is when you get the inheritance, not when you get swon't.
I could go on, but I wont. The point of my comment is that, Calvinists and Gnostics, are fringe offshoots of Christianity, that are deterministic.
Most Christians - Actions matter the future has possibilities.
Calvinists - Every action was predetermined by God.
Gnostics - Every action was predetermined by God.
Dr White won't admit that similarity, because... I dunno, maybe he has a tinge of narcissistism. You decide.
@@travissharon1536 if we are predestined to believe, and we are saved by believing, that means we predestined to be saved
and all Christians are adopted sons of God, Jesus is the only begotten Son, through Him we obtain the inheritance which is redemption and resurrection of our bodies on the last day and everlasting life
@tomtemple69 There are multiple ways to interpret soteriological verses that mention predestination.
I don't agree with the predestination of each individual, like the calvinist divine determinist view believes. Are you familiar with any of the orthodox soteriological views other than Calvinism?
@@Jondoe_04
Where doez the Bible say, that from birth, men are haters of God?
I guess the people who past Kens' doctorate were idiots James? Huh...
amazing how jesus put it, you cant be accepted by god by anything you do. you have access to god through me the door.
That doesn't mean that God causes people to be able to respond to him. How is that not clear. I don't see Total Depravity in the Bible. I will accept it, if someone can show me anything that doesn't need the lense of Calvinism first. I know many people who never delve into theology and just read the Bible, absolutely none of them believe anything like the TULIP.
The man who help witness to me the most doesn't do philosophy because of collosians 2:8, when I showed him Calvinism, he said, "oh you mean Luciferian Satanism?"
“Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.””
John 3:4-8 NKJV
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.””
John 3:16-21 NKJV
“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.”
II Timothy 1:8-11 NKJV
6:09 you say “as long as you can draw a parallel” - Augustines interpretation is at focus here. Therefore, his influential bias is as stake, not yours. The premise is - what he influenced by these parallels. Not “was he executing hermeneutics of the NT”
If I am reading you correctly, you are assuming that the parallel Wilson makes between Augustine and Mani is correct, therefore it is just a question of how influential Augustine was in spreading Manichaeism. White is challenging the validity of a parallel between the two in the first place.
In another highlight, White compares the parallel made between Mani and Augustine to the parallel between Mithra or other ancient gods and Jesus. Those sorts of parallels require oversimplifying and using Christian terminology to describe the other system so that it appears to be similar, when a deeper dive into the actual beliefs of both will reveal that they bear little resemblance. White is saying that Wilson's parallel likewise falls apart when you look more deeply at it, and in this video (and in others) points out that some of the aledged parallels are also found in church fathers that Wilson doesn't accuse of Manichaeism or Gnosticism.
So sure, Augustine's interpretation is important, but since the accusation is that Augustine's interpretation parallels Manichaeism, it is worth exploring whether that claim holds up and the parallel actually exists. White is saying it doesn't.
One thing. Why does where Augustine came from make his understanding wrong or right? Paul was a Pharisee, do we disavow his theology because of that?
You don't refute an argument with an ad hominem attack on Augustine, which is all that is.
Take that away and you have nothing.
@@Phill0old Paul was taught directly by Jesus Christ himself. Augustine converted from Manichaeism because the emporer put out a decree that the Manichaeians would be killed unless they converted. That is HUGELY different.
@@BEABEREAN10 Ok so the big difference is you are not being truthful about Augustine.
@@Phill0old what did I say that is not true? Is it not true that the Manichaeians we're threatened with death by Theodosius I in the year 382 and that Augustine converted in the year 386 after previously studying Manichaeism for 10 years? That's a huge red flag regarding the out of his conversion and hugely different from Paul's conversion and teachings directly from Christ.
Wow! Wilson, on soteriology 101 put White over his knee and spanked I’m like a baby answering this video😂
Thank you, Dr. White.
For what? 😂
Protecting your Semi-Gnosticism?
If there was anyone who was qualified to settle the matter of man's free will over against the sovereignty of God would it not be the Apostle Paul who is writing under inspiration in his letter to the Roman believers? Consider the following:
"And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor HAVING DONE ANY GOOD OR EVIL, THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION MIGHT STAND, NOT OF WORKS BUT OF HIM WHO CALLS), it was said to her, “THE OLDER SHALL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” As it is written, “JACOB I HAVE LOVED, BUT ESAU I HAVE HATED.”
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” SO THEN IT IS NOT OF HIM WHO WILLS, NOR OF HIM WHO RUNS, BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY. For the SCRIPTURE SAYS to the Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I HAVE RAISED YOU UP, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the
earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom HE WILLS, and whom HE WILLS HE HARDENS.
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? FOR WHO HAS RESISTED HIS WILL?” Rom. 9:10-19
Let all who desire, muster their great intellectual abilities to waste time speculating on this subject. Their musings put to paper will be weighed in the balances of "revelation" and found wanting. From Genesis to Revelation God chooses in spite of man's opinions. From Luther's hymn...."ONE LITTLE WORD SHALL FELL HIM."
it kinda puts things in perspective to know God is God and we are not. This debate to me is the most frustrating headache inducing endeavour i have ever known. I hold the Calvinist position and it has brought me peace with the scriptures but people close to me are deeply offended by it. why cant life be simpler
@@stubowl1 Pelagianism (Pelagius opposed the doctrine of grace that Augustine taught) is a sorry rabbit trail for the rebellious who find no peace in truth.
@@stubowl1 For your interest, here is a link to an article that has collected writings from the early church fathers who, like us, saw election and predestination in the scriptures:
www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/
@@gloryman3634 Thanks so much. This is very helpful
@@stubowl1 We are so blessed to have these kinds of resources at our finger tips.
It was a great book meant for the simple average person to read, he did it as a favor that was asked by a friend and many people..., it wasn't a representation of his entire work, that was offered to Dr White, he didn't seem interested, he was also offered to debate the original work with the guy who wrote it, but he also refused that too...
At a certain point, an honest person has to take in all this and discern for themselves...
Dr White likes to get attention, but when it comes to engaging Ken Wilson over his work...
White ran away and didn't want any part of it...
Ken is academically a level above White, and he knows it....
That's most likely why he didn't accept the challenge...
But this type of stuff will most likely continue to feed the fans and keep the brand going, while ignoring the important stuff...
I guess I'm a little unclear on what you are saying about Ken Wilson's honesty. It sounds like you are saying he is willing to lie to sell his theory to laypeople, but if you really want to know the truth, they need to shell out $100 or so dollars for the real thesis? I'm not sure it is a good look to tell some people one thing and other people different things. But if he is saying the same thing, but in a condensed manner, what is the actual issue with refuting what a broader audience is more likely to read?
Besides, if you had watched the whole series, you would know that White bought the full $100 thesis and dealt with that as well. He started with the smaller version, but moved on because this poor excuse was even being offered back then.
So accusing someone of lying and deceiving people in a book or thesis they did, and critiquing it and telling people how bad it was etc...
A person will say all those things, but is unwilling to engage that person over their work. That's interesting. It's not the covid year anymore, what is the current excuse for not wanting to engage Ken Wilson?
@@JP-ux4cd _"So accusing someone of lying and deceiving people in a book or thesis they did, and critiquing it and telling people how bad it was etc... "_
Yeah... that's why I was wondering why you were saying what you were saying about his book for laypeople. It isn't retracted, right? He is still selling it as far as I know, so why would you trash it like that? Are you saying he is being dishonest? If not, why shouldn't White critique it?
_"A person will say all those things, but is unwilling to engage that person over their work."_
Clearly that isn't an accurate depiction of White, as he engaged in both of Wilson's books. You seem to be trashing one of Wilson's books, and I'm not sure why. I recall Wilson promoting it on Leighton's show, so again I'm not sure why you seem to think it is indefensible.
_"It's not the covid year anymore, what is the current excuse for not wanting to engage Ken Wilson?"_
What evidence is there that White is the problem regarding a debate? I don't want to speculate about this. Last I heard, White had an open offer to Wilson that he hasn't accepted, but who knows what is really going on behind the scenes? I choose not to speculate, especially in the partizan way Leightonites tend to. If it happens, cool. If it doesn't, White's multi-part response still throughly deals with both of Wilson's works while walking through actual Manicheism beliefs and the early church fathers to show how Wilson wasn't always completely up front with his audience.
Those interested can sort through the claims of both and weigh who is speaking the truth. Other critiques of Wilson, not just from Calvinists, are available as well. It seems to me that those who aren't anticalvinist at the cost of truth all see deficiencies with Wilson's thesis, even if they otherwise aren't friendly to Calvinism. For those who hate Calvin more than they love Christ, Wilson and Leighton will be enough. Those who are willing to dig deeper and verify what Calvinists actually confess and compare that to Augustine and the early church fathers in contrast to the Manicheans will do well in obedience to Christ's command to weigh cases against their neighbor by the evidence of several witnesses.
I'm not trashing Ken Wilson or his book here, James does that pretty well. As someone who has actually read the book. I thought it was good.
James obviously has attacked the book and the thesis itself, and even Ken Wilson..
In 2020 Ken Wilson welcomed James to debate him over his work, and at the time, James made the excuse that it was a COVID year...
Ken has since had the standing open offer, not James... So that was why I asked what is his current excuse, obviously we are 3-4 years beyond the debate offer from Ken Wilson, and James using the covid thing as the excuse wouldn't be an excuse at this point..
Maybe James has said something since then, but personally I haven't seen it...
Also James said in this series, back in 2020, soteriology 101 was going to be done and finished after he got done with exposing the errors in this series, James said that in 2020...
It's now 2024 and soteriology 101 not only isn't gone, buts it's thrived even more since then..
So I tend to be a put up or shut up person in my approach to everything in life...
That's where I'm at with James and all his tough talk and stuff..
@@JP-ux4cd I'm just glad you backed down from your original claim that James didn't address the thesis. I don't know why many on Leighton's side like to make sweeping easily disproved claims, but I'm glad when they take correction.
Are you in a position to have special knowledge of what is going on behind the scenes? I'm not going to assume either are at fault for why they haven't debated. People get busy, priorities change. Isn't Wilson a practicing medical doctor or something? I could see why it might be legitimately difficult for him to find time to debate in a way that matches Whites own busy schedule. I refuse to assume bad motive on either without evidence
You are on mani side in the nature of the will. Goes both ways
And by that standard, Ken Wilson is on the side of Gnosticism in his denials of baptismal salvation, Eucharistic real presence, salvation can be lost, necessity of repentance to salvation etc.
And he’s factually wrong in his claims Augustine brought infant baptism for salvation and we are born sinful and in need of that baptismal salvation into the early church out of Manichaean Gnosticism.
Make sure to check Ken Wilsons response on this clip from James White..
'Ken Wilson rebutes James White, soteriology 101'..
th-cam.com/video/LatpdNAnH4g/w-d-xo.html
Sorry, it wasn’t a rebuttal but gaslighting. Wilson was not upfront when he denied saying in the previous interview that Augustine invented baptismal regeneration by saying he was only talking about certain forms only. He also wasn’t being truthful when he said he didn’t claimed Pelagius and others on his side were Baptists, in the first interview, when he clearly did multiple times in saying they first opposed Augustine because they rejected infant baptism and held to credo Baptist views. He and Flowers use that revisionism of what they said to falsely claim that White claimed they said the likes of Pelagius were Baptists because they held to freewill to mock White.
That’s not rebutting but obfuscating, gaslighting, and outright not being honest at all.
And on top of that, Wilson claimed falsely that Augustine’s mentor Ambrose denied infants baptismal regeneration. Uh, no, he didn’t. He affirmed it in On Abraham 2.84 and even quoted John 3:5 as baptismal text applying to infants (a few pages earlier, he said in 2.79 that John 3.5 is baptismal regeneration requirement and in 2.81 that infants need the sacrament because they are not devoid of guilt and need to be called from sin.
And Wilson obfuscated in regards to Origen’s Romans 5.9 commentary by saying it was mistranslation since the real translation could not possibly affirm as this the view of Augustinian original sin. What he doesn’t tell you is that he referenced this source as we have now when it suits him in both his dissertation and his shorter book based off it as if on his side against Augustinian original sin. Total bad faith argument. That is compounded by the fact that contrary to his claims, that wasn’t the only writing that Origen affirmed Psalm 51:5 original sin view and infant baptismal regeneration to remit it. Origen affirmed the exact same in Leviticus 8.3 homily.
@@Tron4JC
Yes that's exactly what it was. Gaslighting. I bought the dissertation myself. What a piece of crap. It is like a bunch of sticky notes put together.
The examples James white goes through, the whole dissertation is like that.
For example I think it's page 139 Wilson said Augustine believed in pagan gods because of something he saod. Then when you actually go see what Augustine wrote he was just saying he felt like a guy in this play. It was a popular Greek play because all the popular plays were Greek then. What he said about Augustine was twisted to make it something else. It's like Wilson didn't think anybody would ever check. Apparently the people that read his dissertation at his college didn't check.
And Fowers interviews the guy like hes a hero but never bothers to check the dissertation himself. What an idiot.
@@billyr9162 check out Chrysostom’s commentaries on Philippians 1:29, John 6:37, 12:32, 1 Corinthians 4:7, 12:3, Ephesians 2:8. He absolutely, even as a Synergist, affirmed faith is an initial gift of God, contrary to Ken Wilson’s revisionism that Augustine made up that view of those texts out of Manichaean Gnosticism.
Wonderful
Why won’t you talk to the guy first and find out what he meant, otherwise you are wasting our time. Don’t you have anything else to do?
Because he read the guy’s published work, dumbass
@@adamdominguez656 nice mouth! Calvinist theology in action!
@@johndisalvo6283 Let’s not diss a theology because of the bad mouth of an advocate of it
Just want to inform those who are not too biased to just set aside your biases for an hour and go watch Ken Wilson's response to White's claims. If you're not blind to facts you'll be very enlightened. God bless
Or, if one doesn't want to hear partizan takes from the Calvinist or Provisionist side, this video with a Lutheran and Arminian is a good watch.
th-cam.com/video/K51_yjbkDx0/w-d-xo.html
poor mr wilson is miss informed
I can understand why james turns off comments other places. The more i listen to james i dont Think he hears people. Sooo fixed in his presubs, loaded answers/questions. Take hos ACTUAL D. Book and go throu it.
Og amaze me that i did not se the same fixed mindset in James that i left behind in the jv.
would you like a towel for your tears? he has ability to do what he wants. lol.
@@dwaynejohnson4662 tears what tears. I dont do tears i do facts, Looking forward to more Than just this " im so smart with my "degree" 😏 just trust me...
Go throu it, show us, come on.
So says fans of Ken Wilson who won’t make himself at all available on social media, except on TH-cam with those who will cover for him, to people who can challenge him publicly on his claims.
@@thedonsj2172 He did wind up getting his dissertation and embarrassed Mr. Wilson even worse than before.
I wonder if white read the preface. In it ken wilson says this book is inadequate for critical evaluation in a scholarly study. Scholars who are interested in this topic ... should read and respond to the entire published scholarly work."
Reason being that this is a dumbed down summary of a doctoral thesis fo the lay person.
All these comments are just filled with prideful ignorance. People just regurgitating what some evangelical pastor said on youtube
Dr white you seem like you are shaked by this book
Wow. James White is truly being exposed.
8:24
Ken Wilson's book is almost as bad as James White's book "The King James Only Controversy".
There is a lot of coping in this video unfortunately.
You people are ridiculous. This book is full of unsubstantiated claims and outright false claims. Its a conclusion looking for its reasoning. But hey why dont you try to substantiate the idea calvinism comes from gnosticism so I can laugh at you.
@@danielomitted1867
Case in point 👆
@@felixguerrero6062 case in point, you wont even try 😁
@@danielomitted1867
And more cope...
Ladies and gentlemen, we got 'em
@@felixguerrero6062 not an argument. Imagine being so much of a coward you cant defend what you believe. Sad really. But go ahead and shriek cope a few more times.
These are the WORST possible arguments against Wilson possible… James White is such a poor debator…
😂😂😂😂