Vor einiger Zeit wurden Nachrichten und Vortr\u00e4ge verbreitet, dass ein gewisser Ken Wilson<\/strong> eine Sensation entdeckt h\u00e4tte, n\u00e4mlich dass der Kirchenvater Augustinus der erste \u201eCalvinist\u201c gewesen sei. Eine deutsche Kurzfassung der \u201ebahnbrechenden Dissertation\u201c von Wilson (2012 in Oxford), die im Jahr 2018 ver\u00f6ffentlich wurde, tr\u00e4gt tats\u00e4chlich den Titel: \u201eWar Augustinus der erste Calvinist?\u201c (CMV-Hagedorn, Pb., ca. 156 Seiten, ISBN: 978-3-96190-062-6). Die Doktorarbeit lautet hingegen inhaltlich anders: \u201eAugustine\u2019s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to \u201cNon-free Free Will\u201c: A Comprehensive Methodology<\/em>\u201c (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018, 388 Seiten, ISBN\u00a0978-3-16-155753-8). Es ist also zu vermuten, dass mit der deutschen Ausgabe tats\u00e4chlich eher rei\u00dferische Zwecke verfolgt werden, als denn seri\u00f6se und aufkl\u00e4rende. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Leider hat der Schweizer Bibellehrer Roger Liebi das Vorwort der CMV-Ausgabe geschrieben und aktiv Werbung f\u00fcr dieses Buch gemacht (Liebi leugnet auch die Erw\u00e4hlungslehre der Bibel).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Autor:<\/strong> Kenneth M. Wilson<\/strong> wurde 1956 geboren. 1981 wurde er Doktor der Medizin (!) an The University of Texas Medical School<\/em>. 1989\u201395 war er Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery an der Oregon Health Sciences University<\/em>. 2003 errang er den Titel Master of Divinity, 2006 den Titel Master of Theology und 2012 den Titel D. Phil.<\/em> in Theologie von der University of Oxford<\/em>. Gegenw\u00e4rtig ist er ein zertifizierter Orthopaedic Hand Surgeon<\/em> in Salem, Oregon und zugleich Professor f\u00fcr Kirchengeschichte und Systematische Theologie an der Grace School of Theology<\/em> in The Woodlands, Texas<\/a>, der Ausbildungsst\u00e4tte einer christlichen Sondergruppe (Glaubensbekenntnis<\/a>; bemerkenswert ist folgende schriftwidrige Behauptung dieser Bibelschule in ihrem Doctrinal Statement<\/em>: \u00bbInitial faith resulting in justification and regeneration is not a gift of God.\u00ab).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inhalt:<\/strong> Diskussion und Beurteilung der Behauptungen der Doktorarbeit von Ken Wilson findet sich an mancher Stelle. Eine davon fertigt(e) Mario Tafferner<\/strong> an (Abdruck auf Evangelium 21<\/a>), eine tiefergehendere Chris Whisonant<\/strong> (hier<\/a> ver\u00f6ffentlicht). Beide sind sehr lesenswert. Die Inhaltsangabe der Analyse von Whisonant mit kurzen Zusammenfassungen wird unten abgedruckt. Die \u00dcberschriften enthalten Links zu den vollen Artikeln. Vorsicht: <\/strong>das zugrundeliegende Studium ist nichts f\u00fcr Anf\u00e4nger. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Allerdings k\u00f6nnte selbst ein Laie mit etwas Bildung erkennen, dass Augustinus (354\u2013430) rein zeitlich niemals ein \u201eAnh\u00e4nger Calvins\u201c (1509\u20131564) oder dessen Lehren gewesen sein konnte. Ob diese Behauptung Geschichtsklitterung, Dummheit oder Effekthascherei ist, mag jeder selbst beurteilen. Man beachte auch folgende zwei Tatsachen:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Gegen eine Erstentdeckung mit entsprechender Sensation seitens Ken Wilson (wie es die reisserische Bewerbung des Buches erwarten l\u00e4sst) spricht jedenfalls, dass schon vor Kenneth Wilson<\/b>s Ver\u00f6ffentlichung (2018) wissenschaftlich und ausf\u00fchrlich nachgewiesen worden war, dass Augustinus die \u201eLehren der Gnade\u201c vertrat, z. B. im Rahmen der Doktorarbeit von C. Matthew McMahon<\/strong>, Augustine\u2019s Calvinism: The Doctrines of Grace in Augustine\u2019s Writings<\/a><\/em>, die bereits 2012 ver\u00f6ffentlicht wurde. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) Dass Augustinus der erste<\/strong> \u201eCalvinist\u201c gewesen sei, die Kirchenv\u00e4ter vor ihm die Inhalte und Lehren der \u201eF\u00fcnf Punkte des Calvinismus\u201c also noch nicht gelehrt h\u00e4tten, muss anhand der Quellenlage zur\u00fcckgewiesen werden (s. z. B. Artikel: <\/a>Calvinism in the Early Church. <\/a>The Doctrines of Grace Taught by the Early Church Fathers<\/em><\/em>). Eine umfassende Arbeit mit Originalzitaten von den \u00e4lteren Kirchenv\u00e4tern hat bereits der Theologe und Sprachgelehrte John Gill <\/strong>vorgelegt (The Cause of God and Truth<\/em>, 4. Band, 1738).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Man sollte sich aufgrund der Tatsachen wohl eher zu folgender Aussage reduzieren, wie sie McMahon<\/strong> in der Einleitung seiner Ausarbeitung trifft (op cit<\/em>): \u201eDer heilige Augustinus war ein Calvinist und Johannes Calvin war ein Augustiner. Das hei\u00dft, sowohl Augustinus als auch Calvin hielten sich an das Evangelium von Jesus Christus, das in der Bibel zu finden ist, obwohl sie \u00fcber ein Jahrtausend auseinander lebten\u201c <\/strong><\/mark>(weiter erhellende Fortsetzung des Zitats s. unten).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fazit: <\/strong>Nach Einsch\u00e4tzung von Kennern der Materie ist zu bef\u00fcrchten, dass sich am Ende der 388 Seiten (des Originals) die Sensation des Ken Wilson als lahme Ente erweist, oder \u2013 wie der alte Goethe es sagen w\u00fcrde\u2013: \u201eGetretener Quark wird breit, nicht stark.<\/b>\u201c <\/mark>(West\u00f6stlicher Divan, 1819\/1827).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00bbBelow you will find a Table of Contents with all of my posts in this current series. I will link to each post and provide a brief synopsis of its argument, typically a summary of each post\u2019s conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 1 \u2013 Clement and Free Will<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Wilson argues that when Clement stirred up the believers in Corinth to good works that the implicit<\/strong> logical consequence must only be libertarian free will. If this is clear through implication, what of the explicit<\/strong> statements relating God\u2019s will<\/strong> to our calling, justification, and opening of the eyes of our hearts that Clement understood believers are predestined and elected by God? By simply looking at the actual writing of Clement<\/em>, there would be more data demonstrating that he was on the \u201ctraditional\u201d belief in election as it relates to God\u2019s purpose of salvation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 2 \u2013 Augustine, 412, and Original Sin<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Upon hearing that infants should be baptized not<\/em> to remit original sin but simply to sanctify them, Augustine realized that this was not part of what he understood as the Christian faith handed down through the ages. He understood that the Church \u201cguarded with utmost constancy\u201d the doctrine that children were sinners due to their inheriting original sin from Adam. Therefore, his immediate argument was that the Church was against this novel doctrine of Pelagius and that infants should have always been baptized to cleanse them of their sin. If there was a side that Augustine would have understood as \u201ctraditional\u201d, it was that side guarded by the Church that believed the transmission of original sin from Adam needed to be washed away in infants so that they could be clean and free from sin until such a time as they committed their own personal sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 3 \u2013 Some Earlier Comments from Augustine on Original Sin<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Augustine spoke about the inherited sin nature by the sin of the first man very early in his Christian life in the year 393. And then in 401 we could see Augustine discussing the need for remission of sins by baptism in infants. The remission of sins was to renovate them from the sins of the old man. Augustine was<\/em> saying something that the \u201ctraditional\u201d advocate would not be able to say while being consistent with their own writings. Could a Provisionist say that \u201cthe custom of sinning has been turned into a nature of sinning according to mortal generation, by the sin of Adam\u201d? That\u2019s the language of Augustine before he explicitly <\/em>wrote lengthy treatises on Original Sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 4 \u2013 Athanasius and Original Sin<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Athanasius spoke of an origin of death from Adam, a curse of sin, and death being removed through regeneration from above and a quickening in Christ. At the very least, Athanasius shows that the church before Augustine was talking in ways that sound less \u201ctraditional\u201d than the Provisionist would like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 5 \u2013 Using Equal Scales in the Discussion<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilson has also asserted that Biblical<\/em> calls to repent or wake up must mean<\/em> that man has that capability within himself to fulfill that call. In this post we see a similar statement by Mani where one is told to awaken. The \u201ctraditionalist\u201d would read these statements in Scripture as meaning that man has moral ability to heed the call himself and wake up, but the same person will read some type of determinism into a statement by Mani. I would urge that we try to be consistent with regards to how we interpret passages based off of our presuppositions. I am in no way trying to defend the statement by Mani \u2013 he was, as we have seen, not even talking about the Christ of the Bible as the Redeemer but rather was talking about Zoroaster! What I am trying to do <\/em>is to urge you to consider whether you are using the same criteria when you read traditional libertarian free will into early church fathers but not into what Mani was saying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [Part 6 \u2013] The Depths of Augustine\u2019s Manichaeism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n This foundational part of \u201cfaith\u201d (a \u201cRedeemer\u201d known as Zoroaster,who Wilson equated with Christ, commanding one to awake from their slumber and that Redeemer gave the grace for someone to even be able to awaken) that Augustine supposedly snuck into Christianity was approved by Augustine, per Wilson. Yet it does not take into account that Augustine was quite explicit that the \u201cfaith\u201d he had as a Manichaean was disapproved of by him. Certainly this \u201cfaith\u201d would include such non-catholic beliefs in astrology and the false god along with Zoroaster the Redeemer in Manichaeism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 7 \u2013 What If We Rewrite the Stars?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n After reading this post, does it sound to you like Augustine was still under the influence of Stoic Providence guided by the stars in 388 and 398 (as well as from 393 and 397 in quotes below) when he explicitly denied the influence of stars over the birth of any man? As Augustine stated in Confessions, <\/em>he had abandoned any type of atrological determinism by 386 \u2013 even before he was converted! When you have direct and explicit denials by Augustine of the assertions that Wilson is making, you have to ask yourself why Dr. Wilson is treating Augustine the way that he is. Augustine, in writings from 388-401 categorically denied any assertion that he continued to worship the heavenly bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 8 \u2013 Council of Carthage<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n As this post demonstrates, the statements that Dr. Wilson made regarding the Council of Carthage do not hold water when we look at the actual document. They did believe that the church universal was baptizing infants and that it was to remit the sin that was in them as a result of generation from Adam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 9 \u2013 Breaking The Silence of Augustine<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Even excluding Ad Simplicianum<\/em> we can see that Augustine spoke with similar language in the 10 years surrounding that letter. We see that what Dr. Wilson has conceded as non-traditional language in Ad Simplicianum<\/em> is echoed by further non-traditional language in other works around that time (and the quotes that I have posted above are not exhaustive). If Augustine believed in 396 what he wrote in Ad Simplicianum<\/em>, then Wilson\u2019s entire thesis is a house of cards. But Dr. Wilson has stacked this house of cards on a single card at the bottom in order to serve as the firm foundation for this flimsy house. That single card is the fact that the word \u201creatus\u201d is never found to be used prior to 412. This means that nobody believed that there was damnable guilt associated with original sin. But I have clearly just shown that Augustine, at least in 401, did believe in the inherited guilt of original sin such that he would recommend that children must be baptized to cleanse and regenerate them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 10 \u2013 On The Magnitude of The Soul<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n When Augustine\u2019s own words are read he appears to have spoken in a \u201cnon-traditional\u201d way. I simply ask, yet again, if the things that Augustine wrote in this work are statements that the provisionists could agree with. Can they say that man cannot even begin or complete the renovation of spirit without God helping him to do that? Can they say that our use of free will \u201cdoes not disturb any portion of the divine order and law\u201d? These are serious questions that undermine much of Dr. Wilson\u2019s thesis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 11 \u2013 On Psalm 51 and Original Sin<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n After reading through some of Augustine yourself, it should be clear that it is anything but Wilsonian \u201cTraditionalism\u201d. As I have shown, Augustine not only says that children are born guilty (with a lack of innocence) but that they are further born with punishment upon them which makes them need the washing of regeneration in baptism. Guilty persons (infants) in need of regeneration, according to Augustine\u2019s understanding of the catholic faith, would face the punishment of damnation.<\/p>\n\n\n\nChris Whisonant: Discussing Ken Wilson\u2019s Work \u2013 A Table of Contents<\/h2>\n\n\n\n