Ken Wilson on Augustine introducing Manichaean Theology to the Church

[nuclear_calvinist]

Has anyone been interested in the Provisionist/Traditionalist use of Ken Wilson's work? His work is becoming very popular and spreading to other groups, such as Mormons, who quote his work as conclusive proof that Augustine infected Christianity with Manichaean theology. That's why I feel it's important to address it rather than just wave it away.

Ken Wilson has been pushing the idea that Augustine had introduced his previous Manichaean theology into the Christian church. His book, "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism," based on his dissertation presented to Oxford for his DPhil degree, has made a huge splash in the Provisionist/Traditionalist (a la Leighton Flowers) community as well as those who are just desirous to see the end of Calvinism in general.

Basically, Wilson claims in his book that Augustine introduced a novelty into the Christian tradition as to the reason infant baptism must be performed (namely, to cleanse from original sin and save them from the punishment of hell). He admitted in his book that infant baptism was practiced prior to Augustine, but that it was more of a "baby dedication" type practice but no one really knew why they should do it. He also claims that Augustine introduced determinism into Christianity based on what he was taught and believed as a Manichaean, and since Calvinism is a form of modern Augustinianism, Calvinism is based on gnosticism. In a video, Wilson claims, "At the end of my book, I list all of the Scriptures used by the Manichaeans to support their doctrines. And guess which ones they are? They’re the very ones the Calvinists use today." (link to video: Was Augustine the first to introduce "CALVINISM" into the Church?)

Meanwhile, Thuyen Tran, a Lutheran who has done a lot of work in studying the early fathers, has posted quite frequently on his personal Facebook page debunking many of the claims made in Dr. Wilson's dissertation (which was the basis for his book) and shown that many of the sources he claimed said one thing actually end up saying something else, or even the exact opposite.

In response, Wilson appeared on Leighton Flowers' program (link: Dr. Ken Wilson is Back!) and interacts with Thuyen's arguments at about 20:45 into the program. For the first part of the program, they basically mock most of the reviews for his book on the Amazon store page from any random person, then move on to address Thuyen's arguments. At that point, he criticizes Thuyen for not having the same academic degrees or not publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals for a minimum of several minutes before even getting to the arguments. Then Thuyen was criticized for having writing mistakes (without either knowing or acknowledging that English is a second language for him), commenting that he wouldn't make these kind of "sophomoric" mistakes if he had received proper academic training. They also laugh at him for writing more than 50 paragraphs (I don't know if that's literal or being hyperbolic) in response to Dr. Wilson's claims in his book. Wilson and Flowers then rebut strawmen of Thuyen's arguments and not his actual arguments.

(contd.)

 

[nuclear_calvinist]

(As a side note, it seemed very odd to me that Wilson and Flowers spent over 15 minutes reading reviews from the Amazon page, and then criticize Thuyen for not having academic degrees...if that's a pre-requisite to having a decent argument, then why waste your time looking at Amazon reviews where anyone can post?! Is it just to get a laugh out of it or something?)

At around 26:05 in that program, Flowers asks Wilson if the church at that time baptized not for baptismal regeneration but more as a baby dedication, and Wilson goes on to basically agree that yes, prior to Augustine, that's pretty much why infant baptism was started in 200 AD in North Africa. He says starting at around 26:05:

I did not ever say that Augustine was the first to say that you should baptize infants to forgive sins. That is not true, I never said that. What I said was, in the context...that Augustine was the first to say we need to baptize infants because if we don't then they go to hell because of Adam's inherited guilt. He is the first one to ever say that. And I've read through all of the early church fathers. You cannot find it anywhere else. So were they baptizing infants? Absolutely. Were they baptizing them for salvation? Well, that's a difficult question to really answer until you get to Augustine.

But Thuyen wasn't claiming that Wilson was saying Augustine was the first to invent infant baptism. On the screen it shows a quote from Thuyen that is showing quotes from early church fathers prior to Augustine that are "affirming infant baptismal salvation to forgive sins of infants as a result of original sin." So the quotes he provides are specifically to rebut Wilson's argument that Augustine was the first to innovate the reason for baptism (viz., saving from hell because of original sin).

Another issue with Wilson is that he seems to be contradicting previous statements from himself. In Wilson's book, "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism," he wrote the following:

About 404 CE, Augustine praised the faith of the thief on the cross as sufficient for salvation without water baptism (Bapt.4.29-30). Baptism only avails for infants' dedication to God and a first step toward salvation, not the forgiveness of guilt from original sin (Bapt.4.32). Augustine requires a conversion of the heart (4.33) and perseverance to the end for salvation (Bapt.1.14) without mentioning God giving these gifts.

He seems to be contradicting his book in his recent appearances on Flowers' program. His book claims babies were baptized as a dedication to God, but then he says in the video "Was Augustine the first to introduce "CALVINISM" into the Church?" at around 7:40-7:45 that no one knew why infant baptism was performed at 400 AD before Augustine came up with a reason.

Here is a public post from Thuyen after the program:

In Ken Wilson’s previous video he claimed no one knew why infant baptism was practiced in 200s and onwards even with Augustine in 400s. The only response he can give in today’s video it is that it is a fake sophomoric rebuttal to him, when I produced quotes of church fathers prior to him stating why infant baptism was done. He don’t get to claim maybe baby dedication when previously he said no one knew why prior to 412, not even Augustine.
See 7:42-7:45 mark in prior video:

(he then links to the "Was Augustine the first to introduce "CALVINISM" into the Church?" video)

​

He also later posted a direct response to Dr. Wilson:

Dear Ken Wilson,
You can’t claim you never deny pre-Augustine fathers taught infant baptism for forgiveness of sins when 1) in prior interviews and books say no one not even Augustine knew why infant baptism was taught prior to 412, 2) now claim infant baptism was practiced for baby dedication prior to 412 contradicting both claims of you never deny infant baptism for forgiveness of sins was taught and claim no one knew why infant baptism was practiced prior to 412, and 3) insist they never taught infant baptism for salvation prior to Augustine given you just admit they taught infant baptism for forgiveness of sins which is itself salvation.

Thoughts? Comments? Anything to add?

Thanks.

 

[83r17h]

I had typed up a lengthy reply. But it can be summed up as this: stay away from provisionists unless you really need to interact with them. Provisionism doesn't care about consistency, or having a system. It only cares that Calvinism (by its own definition) be wrong. If someone takes the label provisionist, the debate is likely not worth having.*

Better alternative: just present a solid explanation of and biblical case for Reformed theology. Wilson isn't worth the time of day. You need to evaluate an argument on its own merits. The (supposed) historical argument is secondary to what the positions actually say. I think Horton completely vindicates Reformed theology from any semblance with gnosticism in Covenant and Eschatology (or maybe it was Lord and Servant - one of those two).

* not necessarily universally, but universally in my own experience

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

If Wilson ever got into a one on one with a James White or someone off that nature it would be a bloodbath. (And did the Manicheans actually use the Bible? My understanding is it was a religion that co-opted Jesus but didn’t have a Christian origin.)

 

[retroGRAD3]

Not to mention that in almost every debate they show up to they never present a positive case for their side, only that reformed theology is bad.

It may also be worth mentioning that about a year ago James White did a series of response videos to Flowers and Wilson where I feel he completely dismantled and refuted their presentation.

It appears someone has put together the entire collection of these videos:

 

[RamistThomist]

As to Manicheanism and Augustine, it is true that Augustine has some anti-body tones in his theology. Especially on married sex. But to say that he is Manicheanism is just silly.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Yes, the Church's greatest anti-manichean polemicist is somehow a manichean, and that makes the doctrines of grace, clearly expounded by the Apostle Paul 400 years before said anti-manichean writer, Manichean. Throw in the towel boys, we had a good run of it.

 

[jwright82]

As to Manicheanism and Augustine, it is true that Augustine has some anti-body tones in his theology. Especially on married sex. But to say that he is Manicheanism is just silly.

And this guy got a PhD. for this?

 

[Taylor]

And this guy got a PhD. for this?

I agree with Gary North when he said that the modern PhD is the biggest academic scam in history. (He had a PhD from a well-regarded institution, by the way.) Some of the most theologically solid, well-read, and erudite men I know do/did not have PhDs, and some of the most credentialed doctorate-holders are absolute dolts.

(That is not to say that having a doctorate means that one is a dolt. I’m just saying having a doctorate these days doesn’t mean much. It’s the work that counts.)

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I agree with Gary North when he said that the modern PhD is the biggest academic scam in history. (He had a PhD from a well-regarded institution, by the way.) Some of the most theologically solid, well-read, and erudite men I know do/did not have PhDs, and some of the most credentialed doctorate-holders are absolute dolts.

(That is not to say that having a doctorate means that one is a dolt. I’m just saying having a doctorate these days doesn’t mean much. It’s the work that counts.)

The PhD in theology is something that I view with grave suspicion precisely because the thesis has to be saying something new. Unless you are working in historical theology, I would stay clear of it.

 

[BRK]

I had typed up a lengthy reply. But it can be summed up as this: stay away from provisionists unless you really need to interact with them. Provisionism doesn't care about consistency, or having a system. It only cares that Calvinism (by its own definition) be wrong. If someone takes the label provisionist, the debate is likely not worth having.*

Better alternative: just present a solid explanation of and biblical case for Reformed theology. Wilson isn't worth the time of day. You need to evaluate an argument on its own merits. The (supposed) historical argument is secondary to what the positions actually say. I think Horton completely vindicates Reformed theology from any semblance with gnosticism in Covenant and Eschatology (or maybe it was Lord and Servant - one of those two).

* not necessarily universally, but universally in my own experience

If it wouldn't be too much trouble for you, I would appreciate the lengthy reply you had intended to post. I'm hearing more of Leighton Flowers, Ken Wilson, and a new name, Kevin Thompson, all of whom reject Calvinism quite strongly. Some folks whom I love are also opposed to Reformed theology, at least with respect to the doctrines of grace. I admit that I don't know very much of the patristics so I lack the capacity to critically evaluate Wilson's claims and charitably respond to those who are suspicious of Reformed thought.

 

[83r17h]

If it wouldn't be too much trouble for you, I would appreciate the lengthy reply you had intended to post. I'm hearing more of Leighton Flowers, Ken Wilson, and a new name, Kevin Thompson, all of whom reject Calvinism quite strongly. Some folks whom I love are also opposed to Reformed theology, at least with respect to the doctrines of grace. I admit that I don't know very much of the patristics so I lack the capacity to critically evaluate Wilson's claims and charitably respond to those who are suspicious of Reformed thought.

I'll see what I can remember from what I was going to say!

My own experience with provisionists has been rather frustrating. They apply double standards to arguments (they reject your strong arguments as "not sufficient proof" and accept their own weak arguments as "irrefutable"). As I mentioned above, they don't really have a system that they are using. You try to pin down their position, and they either don't know it, or refuse to articulate, explain, and defend it. As a mathematician, I like to trace the connections between different areas of systematic theology. But every discussion I've had with a provisionist refuses to consider the coherence of their soteriology with things like theology proper and Christology.

I've attempted at times to do an alternative, working through the chapters of the Westminster Confession. Commonly, provisionists target a caricature of "Calvinism" which doesn't match what the Reformed Confessions say. Most refuse to believe that there's actually a chapter on free will in the Westminster Confession. They want you to be a hyper-calvinist, and refuse to acknowledge anything else. You're either a hyper-calvinist, or a provisionist. And since you're a hyper-calvinist, you're just importing Greek philosophy which determines your theology (which is surprisingly similar to neo-orthodox critiques of Reformed orthodoxy I've heard, but the neo-orthodox and provisionist would have widely divergent readings of Calvin himself). I proposed at one point chapter 1 of the Westminster (on Scripture), to see if just that could get agreement. And the most reasonable of provisionists that I met refused to engage with chapter 1, or agree with it (although the precise area of disagreement was never articulated).

You linked to Kevin Thompson's "Beyond the Fundamentals." Of course, the name is a bit inaccurate, as it hints that what you're doing is deepening a theology. However, most (if not all) his content is just attacking his own picture of Calvinism. My main response to him, and every time I hear provisionist ideas, is to pay attention to Reformed theology's own testimony of itself, not the pictures that its opponents paint of it.

Augustine infected Christianity with Manichaean theology

I think that this has been adequately addressed already. As noted by Jacob and Charles, Augustine was not a secret Manichean.

based on his dissertation

This is actually one of the problems I've run into. Knowing Reformed theology, I just reject outright the accusation that Reformed theology is Gnostic and fatalistic. I think I already referenced Horton's work above. Definitions of terms are helpful. What are the attributes they assign to "Gnostic?" What are the attributes they assign to "Reformed?" Is that really what those things are, or is their picture of Gnosticism tailored to fit their picture of Calvinism (which is really hyper-calvinism)? Muller's essay on Jonathan Edwards is an interesting source to point to here. But to return to my original statement, I get asked "have you read the book? If you have and weren't convinced or think he's wrong, have you read the dissertation?" To be honest, if the book is a cut-down version of the dissertation, and I think the book is unsound, I fail to see how a more expensive version of the same argument will change my mind. The author published the book as is, and so seems to think it is an accurate presentation of the same argument. I'm not going to spend a significant amount of money on the dissertation to just say that I still disagree with it. That's a nonsense argument from the provisionist, and one that doesn't engage the actual question of if the Westminster Confession is Gnostic. For that, you need a definition of Gnostic, and an examination of the Westminster Confession (and Reformed theologians). You don't need Wilson's book.

the reason infant baptism must be performed

I think others have dealt with Wilson's inaccuracies here - he seems to say that Augustine had a novel view of baptism and no one else before him believed anything similar. Then, he seems to impute the view of baptismal regeneration (in a Roman Catholic sense) to Reformed theology. I'm not really sure how to respond to the idea that Reformed theology uses baptismal regeneration, supported by predestination, to justify infant baptism. Maybe laugh? The chapter of the WCF on sacraments (along with 13.2) is pretty clear that we don't see baptism as removing original sin. So to say that Reformed theology is justifying infant baptism in that manner, is clearly wrong. I would also point out that every interaction I've had with provisionists, the provisionist has been a Baptist. Without opening a paedobaptism debate, I think there's significance to the correlation between being a provisionist and being a Baptist (but for clarity: not the other way around).

Augustine introduced determinism into Christianity

There's an interesting issue of terminology here. Determinism is generally taken to mean "fatalism" or inherent/natural inevitability. It's an ultimately mechanistic view of the world and events. In that case, we are not determinists. Again, I'd just point to the WCF on free will and providence, as well as the WSC on the fall. If determinism means that no event comes to pass except what God has decreed, then we are determinists. So you could almost say that in view of God's decree, we are determinists...but internal to creation we are not, because we do not view creation (or our actions) as mechanical computations responding to inputs. In Reformed theology, the universe is not a big equation. I hesitate to really dive much deeper into that topic. I think that the provisionist insistence that God's will in the decree necessarily rules out man's genuine willing in the event requires a hidden assumption, one which would if consistently held makes God have univocal being with creatures. I would use the analogy of omnipresence. God's presence in the space where my table is present does not physically displace my table's own genuine presence in that space. To make God and creation competitive, or in opposition, is actually more in line with Gnosticism (Horton talks a bit about this). Maybe the essay "The Dignity of Creatures" in John Webster's God Without Measure (second volume) would be helpful here.

list all of the Scriptures used by the Manichaeans

We all should believe in sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura, so I would hope that any part of the Bible that the Manicheans used is also used by every Christian in forming their doctrinal systems. But also, the Roman Catholics use the same Scriptures that we use to defend the Trinity. We should take the Scriptures as authoritative, regardless of who has interpreted them, or how they've interpreted them. As the old saying goes, "a broken clock is right twice a day," and if the Manicheans were right on interpreting a verse, so what? That still doesn't make us Manicheans, nor Gnostics, nor fatalists. This is like a fallacy by association. Guess what: Hitler also believed that 2+2=4 (although I suppose the next generation of math educators might be immune to this critique).

Someone more knowledgeable in patristics would need to comment on the exact details of the debate. However, I'm not surprised that Wilson appears to be saying contradictory things. It's an inability to recognize any error in one's arguments. This is one reason why I'm happy to have done a degree in mathematics - it doesn't really matter whether you like your proof or not, if your proof is wrong. Patristics actually provide a good example here - they often get right conclusions from really wrong exegesis. The argument supporting a conclusion, the conclusion, and the person making the argument are different things that need to be distinguished. But the provisionists (in my experience) are so bent on declaring "Calvinism bad" that every point of every bad argument must be defended to the uttermost, lest the Calvinist be possibly less wrong! Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit. But consistency is less important in my observation than "owning the Calvinists." It shouldn't be hard to just say "yeah, I was wrong here, and this is what I actually am trying to say." Because that doesn't automatically destroy your argument or conclusion (or person).

There's the long mass of text! I likely have errors of my own, and areas where I'm missing information, and would appreciate supplementation and correction from those more knowledgeable here.

 

[jwright82]

I agree with Gary North when he said that the modern PhD is the biggest academic scam in history. (He had a PhD from a well-regarded institution, by the way.) Some of the most theologically solid, well-read, and erudite men I know do/did not have PhDs, and some of the most credentialed doctorate-holders are absolute dolts.

(That is not to say that having a doctorate means that one is a dolt. I’m just saying having a doctorate these days doesn’t mean much. It’s the work that counts.)

Couldn't agree more.