Zechariah 14:9, then Ken Wilson's Book Against Calvinism

Welcome to the dividing line. It is a Tuesday. We're gonna do our best to be here during this challenging time. For you this week. Try to try to be here as much as possible. I was honestly looking at the possibility of not being here today.

But that did not. That did not pan out. And I guess that's good and bad depending on how you look at it anyway. That situation might suddenly require my my immediate attention. We'll see and a little bit of travel in the process.

But we are here. And for those of you just hiding out you know it's amazing everything I've read the best place the best place everybody would be outside with. I mean it's um it's March April here in Phoenix is always a windy.

No not always windy. But that's if you're gonna have wind in the spring. That's when it's going to be. Just yesterday we had a cold front sweep by north of us north northern part of state. We didn't get anything down here but we got.

We had beautiful wind. Air is as clean as can be. It's in the mid 70s. It's gonna be pushing 80 the end of the end of the next week. Well in the 80s in the middle of next week. And man it just seems incredibly unwise that people are cooped up together in small spaces.

I just not making any sense at all. But that's what. That's what's that's what's going on. So hey get out and breathe in the air. This stuff is is much more contagious in a small controlled area without wind than it is out in the beautiful outdoors.

Yes so that's pretty quick. I mean I did you know did you hear about the some of the local parks around the country that waived their fees and told people get outside. No because all the parks around here have closed up.

Well they've shut down. They shut down the restrooms and go away. So they all these people go outside and then they go wait a minute. There's too many people in the park. Yeah you're too close together.

Totally totally totally crazy. Anyway that's even impacted my riding outside because I know where all the parks are. So I know where the restrooms are. You do a hundred mile ride. You gotta stop a couple times especially when you're pushing 60 years old.

You gotta stop a couple times and everything is closed. So me and Zwift are I'm crushing out the big numbers. I'm literally before the end of the week gonna do a 100 mile ride with 5 ,600 feet of climbing in Zwift.

So that's that's inside. I'll try to try to do it in less than six hours. But yeah would rather do that outside. I'll definitely have the doors and windows open. Let the you know let the air blow through.

But anyway so wherever you are we're going to try to lift your spirits and and help you out. I want to start with a a friend at church posted this text. I think Sunday night after church actually and I happened to look at his name's Andrew.

He's involved with the cultish program. He and Jerry do a lot of the work on cultish. If you've seen that webcast and Andrew has the outside of my granddaughters the cutest little girl in the world named Marley.

She's just dull and so you may have seen the picture where Marley and I were giving the benediction a couple Sundays ago back when you could still get together and stuff anyway. And it was you know people share Bible verses constantly on Facebook.

If you follow almost any number of Christians you'll have Bible verses scrolling by you all day long on Facebook. But this one caught my attention too. And obviously it's good to give a context. Maybe the reason it catches the attention is hey honestly if you are in a context because I don't really feel like in Arizona we're in this context we're not locked inside our houses.

People are walking around and people are going out and it's not you know all the big events it's not where you're going and you're hanging out with a bunch of people. But you can go to the grocery store and you can do your thing.

And and like I said the weather is absolutely positively perfect. And being outside is the best possible thing for you. And so you know this particular text you know you post it you got it we got to put up there and you're looking at and it's like I think one of the reasons that maybe this strikes us is most of us haven't read much of the Minor Prophets.

So maybe if you are in one of those places where you can't get out like we can here maybe how to make it your your goal it's a really good goal to read the Minor Prophets because I've told the story for a member remember told a billion times before.

Why did I read the Bible through for the first time. Do you remember you don't remember it was a jack-chick track. It was a jack-chick track. There's a jack-chick track that you say that three times fast jack-chick it's very hard.

It was a jack-chick track that had a person dying which you may not want a lot of jack-chick tracks that people die and he he goes to heaven and he's walking along the streets of gold and who's he run into but Habakkuk and Habakkuk says hey great to have you here.

Hey why'd you think of my book. And the guy's going what book. Because he had never read all the way through the Bible and had never read Habakkuk. And so I remember reading that track and you know what I did before I went to bed that night I read Habakkuk but I didn't read Zephaniah or Haggai or Nahum and so that's why I made it the goal that and I was in high school someplace to read through the Bible all the way through catch all the stuff that you normally don't catch in a lot of evangelicalism so what would be really really good would be to read the minor prophets but to read them with understanding.

Get it doesn't have to be a study Bible. But you know study Bibles have introductions spend some time with some good you know the Reformation study Bible. Or there's a number of good study Bibles or other things that will give you some background give you have some idea.

What was the background to Zechariah. What was the background to the these are things that are really really important and a lot of I'm seeing a lot of memes where people are saying you know I used to say I did I'll do it when I get around to it and I got lots around to us.

I still don't want to do it and yeah that's it's. That's exactly right. That's that's the situation. So you might want to do it. It's from the book of Zechariah the 14th chapters. Zechariah is not a short book it may be a minor prophet.

Technically speaking it's not a short book and it begins in Zechariah 14 6. What. Oh oh I wasn't planning on doing that especially in the Old Testament. The text is just too small but I can yeah I can I can do that but now I've got to do this now that it's up there it's easier on my eyes I guess.

But anyway Zechariah 14 6 in that day there will be no light the luminaries will dwindle for it will be a unique day which is known to Yahweh neither day nor night. But it will come about that at evening time there will be light and in that day living waters will flood of Jerusalem half of them toward the Eastern Sea in the other half toward the Western Sea.

It will be in summer as well as in winter and Yahweh and this was the text so that so the context here seems there's a lot in Zechariah and Zephaniah that a lot of New Testament scholars see as background imagery and teaching for New Testament books.

And clearly you know when you have Ezekiel and his vision of the temple and now here the living waters going out of Jerusalem yeah these are these are themes that are picked up a lot in in the New Testament and expanded upon there.

So there is the background the living waters will flood of Jerusalem. Jesus describes itself living waters flowing up within the person. I mean clearly there are fulfillment themes and connections there.

But it's verse 9 that was in focus and Yahweh will be king over all the earth. In that day Yahweh will be the only one and his name the only one. Now what was interesting is you know I I saw Andrew post that and I was I looked at the text and you know the first thing catches your mind Yahweh will be king over all the earth and so you have all the Old Testament the prophecy concepts of the knowledge of Yahweh filling the earth and and all the rest is and and a lot of eschatological perspectives put that all off into a far far distant future so that I think it's one of the reasons that a lot of evangelicals don't resonate with what's in the minor prophets is because well that's all that's all after that's all in the Millennium someplace so I you know don't really have to worry about.

It's not something that I never it's not really something I have to think about. But Yahweh will be king over all the earth. And again I need to I need to mention this I apologize. You're look if you're reading the English and you see Lord you're probably going well why do you say Yahweh.

Well it is interesting accordance does this for me here notice what it's doing since each of these are tagged then you can see well I'll just do it this way so you can actually see it in the English Lord is in all capitals but the O and the R and the D are in a smaller font size.

I know that the vast majority audience knows this. Don't feel badly if you don't but you do need to know it and you're blessed to have it in your English translations. I'll tell you why in a moment that is the English Bible translators way of telling you that the underlying Hebrew term is right here and that is yod hey wow hey Yahweh which we slaughter in English as Jehovah.

Now if you read Hebrew you know that that actually has three vowels underneath it which are the vowels for Adonai. They're put there to warn. You don't pronounce this word because in a Jewish synagogue for example you would create great offense if you were to say Yahweh Yahweh the King will be king.

You're used to say Hashem the name or Adonai and you put the vowels there to tell you. You're supposed to say I don't know but it's Yahweh and you can see over in the Greek septuagint on the right hand side that it's courios the Greek term for Lord which then becomes so important in the in the New Testament and so Yahweh will be king over all the earth in that day.

Now let's go ahead and look at the rest since we've got up here I mean let me blow it up just a little bit more. So it's really nice and really nice and big here and make sure we've got only four nine up here.

Okay all right. So they're all so your standard verb to be a stye in Greek here in the Hebrew hi-yah and Yahweh preformative King Malik. You've heard of Molech that's King. It's a form of King and Yahweh will be king over all edits the earth.

Same term used Genesis 1 and Yahweh will be king over all the earth by Yom Yom day. Same again as Genesis 1. There are connections here in preformative bet in that day in that in the day that that specific day Yahweh he will be sorry Yahweh echad.

Now you you may have heard that term before echad you see over in the Greek septuagint it's heis heis me a hen is one the ordinal one and so you can see in the in the Greek and tay hey Mara a kind a s day heis in that day he will be the one Lord or the one Yahweh.

And a card of course is the equivalent to when we talk about the Shema Shema Israel Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh echad and so you have the same term being used here that is in the Shema from Deuteronomy 6 which is the identifying prayer of the monotheistic Jew Yahweh will be one.

And of course that I just mentioned in passing don't want to be losing everybody here. But if you're taking notes you will notice that in first Corinthians chapter 8 these same terms appear when Paul gives that what looks like an early creedal formulation from the early church where he takes the Shema and he expands it out to include Jesus as Yahweh is Kurios.

There's one Kurios heis Kurios both are used there in in first Corinthians 8 as well as in the Septuagint translation of the Shema. So in that day Yahweh will be echad the the one and then literally in the the Septuagint says kaitah animah atuhen and his name one.

Now if you're wondering and we do have people. No I do not want to download my updates right now. Thank you very much. And we do have people that in this audience that will catch stuff like this. You'll notice over here we have heis and I said that meant one and then it says his name the only one is hen.

And sometimes that throws people off is that is this a different word does it mean different thing. And yet look at the look at the Hebrew look at the middle column when I move between the two you'll notice that the word that it moves between is the same echad.

It's heis mia heis is the is a masculine mia the feminine ken is the neuter which goes with ta animah his name. So it's just simply matching the word that it's modifying there and so that's why they're both the same.

They're just in different forms because name and Kurios is masculine name is neuter so they match so that's that's just good Greek but says and the name of him one and you'll notice you look at that this is interesting.

You notice that and they did a good job here. I'm impressed it doesn't always work this well and I hadn't looked at any of this beforehand by the way I had not looked at what the linking would do and yeah that's just happening live as we go along here but I noticed that it has the name and you'll notice it marks four words in the Greek Septuagint and the name of him and his name so it was really consistent over on the English it would be his name is marked here but it's probably just going with it with the Hebrew is the primary linking text here as the original text but in Hebrew you only have two words his name a cod one and so we have to fill in the meaning or provide other words.

And so you'll see in some translations there will be italics used to indicate the added words or something like that. Because in English we just don't say and his name one and in that day he will be Yahweh one Kurios Heis and his name one to Adam out to hen takes more words in Greek and in English to render the underlying Hebrew.

But that's what you that's what you have here. And so what does all that mean. It is seemingly an assertion. Not. You know I think probably what caught Andrews attention initially was the assertion that Yahweh will be king over all the earth.

There will be a recognition of his rulership. And all forms of eschatology affirm that it's when and how it happens that is different. But all forms of eschatology have to recognize that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

That is a reality of what we are saying. And because that is a reality of of what we are saying I guess you couldn't have heard that. How'd you hear that. Oh cuz I. Okay I turned the sound off. So maybe I won't hear it again anyway.

So that alone would be enough to really give consideration to that. It is God's intention that he be known over all the earth and not simply in the form of rebellion but in subjugation because it's one thing to and and the Lord will be king over all the earth.

What does that mean. It's one thing to say his name will be proclaimed over all the earth. It's another thing that he will function as king over all the earth. How. Whatever you do with your eschatology there has to be a fulfillment where Yahweh will be king over all the earth.

And in that day in that day Yahweh echad. And it's really hard for me to not think that this phrase right here. And I really honestly I've been trying to find the color thing. If any of you who work for accordance listen to the dividing line help me find the color thing.

But Yahweh echad that's the end of the Shema. So think about what's being really said here in that day Yahweh echad the very ending of the Shema that identified all the Jewish people their confession will be known over all the earth.

There will be no more false gods. There will be no more competitors. Yahweh echad only the one true God. No more apologetics. Thanks be thanks be. I am NOT one of those people that goes I well I'd be a bummer because then I wouldn't get to argue with people anymore.

No no not in that would be wonderful. Yahweh echad Yahweh will be the only one and his name echad so no other names no other competitors. He will be known. You know the question really is do we believe this.

And like I said different eschatologies fit the fulfillment of this in at different times we get to there with different intervening events judgments resurrections all sorts of things. But it it has to be a central aspect of any eschatological position that this is going to take place that this is a reality.

And given that you have fulfilled prophecies in these minor prophets Zechariah Zephaniah and things like that we have every confidence we have every reason to be confident that the God who brought those fulfill those prophecies of fulfillment in ancient times even though hundreds of years later can continue to do so down to our day as well.

And it certainly should be something that we desire that Yahweh's name will that he will be king over all the earth. And how do we know you know what's the fulfillment of this who is king of kings and Lord of Lords.

Well it's Jesus. It's Jesus. And so we have fulfillment in the New Testament of these things as well. So it's a beautiful text. If you're looking at memorizing some texts in the in your in your downtime this would be certainly an uplifting one to be memorizing at this particular point in time as we face the difficult days ahead.

So I wanted to want to look at that and talk with you about that now. I have been putting off and I still as especially in in regards to a lot of the specifics but I do want to spend a little time because I've been looking at it system building up.

Ken's Wilson is a medical doctor who practices medicine as a board-certified orthopedic hand surgeon in the United States and he holds a doctor from the University of Oxford in philosophy. And evidently this book is the popularized form of his dissertation.

You'll see markings in this because I've been doing the markings in Kindle. I must seek to be as gracious as I possibly can be. I am however stunned that this work was granted anything at Oxford at all.

We have very very very very different historiographies. We have a very very very different approach to church history. What you can and cannot know in church history and how to do church history. So that that's good come out very very clearly as we look at this what you need.

The reason that you might be interested in this book is that it is being used by the provisionists. In fact the book makes reference to both David Allen and Layton flowers. So give you an idea of where it's coming from.

The author is zealously committed to a full on pretty much Pelagian view of free will and he has a tremendous commitment to finding in history that which will substantiate his thesis. He is horrifically unguarded in his language.

I was I went into the book expecting what you read when you read dissertations. I'm having to read a lot of dissertations right now because the work that I'm doing in a different field. But you there are.

There are certain things you avoid when doing a dissertation. You are supposed to be following the research and so you you're guarded in your language in the analysis in the research analysis and and all the way up to the conclusions because your final argument has to be based upon a fair and impartial analysis of what's come before.

There's none of that in this none beginning to end. It is a diatribe. It is specifically there there is no possibility the other side has any merit whatsoever and therefore the language is used is incredibly unguarded.

What was extremely strange is the anachronism from beginning end of this book. What the book does is it takes reformed theology ignores any development from Calvin on just sort of it's just it's just whatever Calvinist and reads the modern context of theological disputes everything else back into the early church now.

That's not uncommon in unscholarly work. That's that's that's what you expect. That's what you that's what you got from Dave Hunt. Okay that that's what. That's what Dave Hunt was all about. Dave Hunt was all about anachronistically transporting our issues today back into the early church.

And so he turned Augustine in the first Roman Catholic not realizing that and not caring that his definition of Roman Catholic today anyone in Augustine's day wouldn't even had a clue what the world he was talking about.

It carries so much development and everything else that. And so when you do historical research you have to be very very careful about that. You have to be just be incredibly concerned about taking language that we use today and finding a parallel in the early church and not realizing there's been so much development in between that to just simply say ah this person said this this person therefore same thing.

There is a lot of that kind of simplistic error throughout this book. It just shocked me. I I went into this with high expectations and that's why almost every page in Kindle is got color all over it.

Can you believe this. What did almost every page. It's it's amazing it really really is. But just to give you an idea I mean I could have started. I I think once before I actually read some of the introduction to give you an idea but let me in the conclusion inspecting the foundation of Augustinian Calvinism.

Now the assumption of the book is that Augustine and Calvin are that Calvin slavishly followed Augustine and there are a couple quotes he gives from from Calvin that out of context sounds like that's what Calvin saying in context.

They don't. That's what's taking this so long is that you know there's a lot of resources cited you have to track them all down and especially right now that's not always easy to do a lot of like libraries are closed and stuff like that but I've tracked a lot of them down and I've again been stunned if I have overseen other people's work in various seminaries.

I I don't know how this got past anybody. I really don't I somebody was asleep at the switch. Augustinian Calvinists claim the only person to correctly interpret the Apostle Paul's deterministic scriptures for the first four centuries was Augustine.

But of course they omit the Stoics Gnostics and Manichaeans who previously interpreted these texts as teaching unilateral determinism. Now one of the challenges here is that the vast majority of even our audience and I'd say that to to say that our audience is an unusually well read audience really is but even the vast majority of our audience probably has next to no knowledge of Manicheanism at all right rich I mean you've you've lectured Manichaeanism right?

Manichaeism? Manichaeanism. Manichaeism. I've seen those in the grocery in the department stores. Manichaeism. Is that? That's pretty much where most of us are. I looked at the I looked at the notes from my seminary and remember my church history class was awesome classes or awesome my church history professor was awesome but church history in a general seminary course is an elective sometimes it's required hopefully should has always been in the past but isn't so much anymore can sometimes be done a Jan term class and Manichaeanism was not discussed to any deep length.

I mean I knew who Manny was I my notes did say that he was you know born the early third century you know so flourished in that time period. Gnostic influences Eastern influences. That was about it that was about it.

So by the way if you're really interested in a quick up to speed on it I was really impressed. This isn't always the place to go but somebody did their homework or some group of people did their homework.

The article of Manichaeanism on Wikipedia is big and lots of references and not half bad at all. I mean for Wikipedia I was impressed really was. I mean nice graphics. And when you study it because he knows he mentioned here he said.

But of course they omit the Stoics Gnostics and Manichaeans who previously interpreted these texts as teaching unilateral determinism. So first of all anyone who knows anything about Stoics Gnostics and Manichaeanism knows that there are differences between each one of these.

Manichaeanism is a form of Gnosticism but with an incredibly wide variety of influences that Manny brought into his self-made religion in the middle of the third century so in other words around 250 ish and he brought in stuff from Zoroastrianism and Buddhism and Gnosticism and Christianity.

And it is a massive mishmash. There's all sorts of different Jesus's and and and it's just a mishmash of messy messy stuff. And it does not even begin to share any foundational worldview similarity to anything that could be identified as Christianity.

You don't have a single creator God. You do not have anything like that and so any kind of for example the Gnostics. Let's take a step back. The Gnostics precede Manny even though there's continuing development in various forms of Gnosticism during Manny's life as well.

But Gnosticism really begins flourishing about a hundred years before Manichaeism does and exists in its primitive forms even during the New Testament period though the final forms that it there weren't any final forms of Gnosticism.

Let's put it that way there there are final forms as far as this as far as it developed in a certain area something like that. But the Gnostic worldview is a dualistic worldview but it to say that it has a singular personal creator.

Yahweh was an evil God in Gnosticism. Well in once Gnosticism encounters Judaism and Christianity it makes room for it. Yahweh becomes identified as an evil God because he created the earth. And since it's dualistic if it's physical it's evil.

Therefore Yahweh is a demi-urge an evil deity powerful but evil. And so there is a divine spark in each person coming from the one divine source. And that ends up in Manichaeism as well as well as his Gnosticism.

But how you access that exactly what that means depends on how it's fleshed out in the various Gnostic groups and and Manny even changed his own view over time on that the point is this none of them are based upon a monotheistic worldview.

None of them are based upon the prophets and apostles. None of them are based upon grammatical historical interpretation of New Testament texts. None of that matters to Ken Wilson as long as you can draw a parallel as long as you can as long as the Gnostics can see see the mystery religions one aspect of certain of the mystery religions.

Notice how I try to always leave open the reality that there were many manifestations of these religions and many differing ways. And there is no one Gnosticism. There is no one Manichaeism because even Manny changed his own beliefs over his own lifetime some people around one thing some people around another thing.

That's how you have to talk about these things. Because you know that there are differing interpretations of even the documents that are available to us today from the Nag Hammadi library or whatever else it might be as to the different kinds of Gnosticism and the different aspects of Manichaeism and all the rest of it.

So you'll notice that as I say this I'm I'm not saying Gnostics believe this it was a form of Gnosticism that believed something like this. And in the mystery religions many of them believed that by going through their various religious ceremonies you would receive Gnosis knowledge that would allow you to free yourself from the trappings of this physical body.

The real you is that divine spark that longs to be reunited to the great divine spark. But that can't happen as long as you're attached to the flesh now. Was that a regular theme in most dualistic and Gnostic.

Yes were there exceptions. Of course you have to you have to recognize those things. So those who partook in the mysteries might be called the chosen ones because they have received this special knowledge.

And so what you do what Ken Wilson does is you just draw a nice straight line get out a ruler go whom elect in Calvin whom elect amongst the Manichaeans of Gnostics. So and I do want to get into this especially this one later on there's a discussion of Vassilidis and gift of faith come completely different context but he brings up a number of times because it it's one of his killer verses.

I want to get into those I want to read the read the read all the contexts I have them in the early Church Fathers Saras Lingua Greca things like that and just show you why how this is is being done and how those who work in the field go.

But if you don't have access to this kind of stuff and I don't remember when it was 1995 or I forget when we got the TLG CD-ROM but we could barely afford it back then you had turn all those things back in but um had it for years had it for a long long time.

We were one of the first people that had it. Yeah for doing my when I did my THD we got that for me it was extremely extremely useful. But if you're if you look up these sources then you go. Whoa wait a minute but see a lot of people just can't look up these sources and so you go.

Oh well you know must be what it is. So the point is going back to what I started reading. You can tell I'm not gonna get very far with it. I'll get look background is the whole point here. Having the background in church history is the whole point here.

Augustinian Calvinist claimed the only person who correctly interpret the Apostle Paul's deterministic scriptures for the first four centuries. Augustine. No we don't. No we don't. Calvin and said Augustine didn't say that.

You're assuming that some of the some of the assumptions here and and it's all through the book. Maybe in his dissertation he dealt with this. But he forgot it in here we don't have a tremendous amount of the early church churches writings.

For many of the earliest fathers what we have is because somebody quotes them partially at a later point in time. If we didn't have Eusebius his church history we wouldn't even know some of these people existed.

But the reality is we have only a small portion of the extant literature. And so one of the first things that caught me when I first started looking through this was how many times it was the universal view the only fair way of actually saying that is in the extant literature that we have that specifically addresses this issue.

It seems that the predominant view prior to would be this. And then Augustine changed it. That's fair. This has no no desire to be fair. Don't even try to be fair. It is completely imbalanced horrifically.

So just way out there. That's what. Just again I was just like what. What's going on here. So I would argue that the epistle of Dionysius we call it math. A taste of math it is just means the disciple is this guy who wrote to Dionysius.

There's good evidence fragmentary seems to me that he has the same view of the elect Clement of Rome talks about the elect all the time. Are you telling me Clement of Rome was a protagnostic. No I don't think so his doctrine seems to go along those things.

But these are not the primary topics that the early church writers were addressing either they had other topics that they were addressing other things that they were focused upon primarily theological and Christological issues.

As I've pointed out I don't know how many times in this program it takes to the fourth century before we have a full-length treatise on the Atonement and there aren't too many people alive today that would actually agree with everything.

Even that said in light of all the different theories of the Atonement that you can parse out of Tertullian and Irenaeus and the recapitulation theory and all the you know all this type of stuff. So making the first centuries the theological standard.

I that's the other thing is like yeah I'm used to the fact that the Roman Catholics do that you're not a Roman Catholic so I'm not sure we're in the world you're going on this. But that's type of thing happens.

So Augustinian Calvinists claim that Augustine in his dispute with Pelagius provided important and insightful interpretations of key soteriological texts that have been demonstrated to be consistently true based upon the hermeneutics of the grammatical historical interpretation of the original languages of Scripture.

Even though Augustine had limited access to the original languages of Scripture and when he was in error it was primarily due to his reliance upon the Latin Vulgate. Well not the Vulgate but the Latin Vulgate is translated during his lifetime by Jerome.

So but the Latin tradition see that's a completely different statement. And that kind of careful accurate statement that takes in consideration a wide mount amount of information is never found in here.

There just aren't any of them there. Everything in here is just pedal to the metal full. I have a thesis and I'm gonna cram it into history and I'm gonna put it out there. And that's just all there is to it.

So well as far as its abusive history. Yes. Yeah. Very much so. So that so when he argues that the Stoics and Gnostics and Manichaeans had previously interpreted this text as teaching unilateral determinism what they meant what Augustine meant are two different things.

And to confuse them just means you are a very very very very theological confused person. Two different things two different contexts two different meanings. And then to assume that there is a straight line that just simply goes Augustine Calvin and Calvin's just sitting there going whatever you say that's not what he did.

You can pretend that I know the quote. Go ahead. You guys repeat the I read it. You go ahead and repeat the quote. I'll take it apart when I get to it. Just be ready already already looked it up. Yeah I know one that that that Calvin said he could write his confession of faith out of what Augustine said.

Look at the first few pages before that little context thing. How many of you I wonder in that group they're just going. Oh I know. How many of you read the pages before that. How many of you looked it up.

How many of you found it online. How many of you did your homework. That's the question. I continue. Somehow Calvinist purport only Augustine baptized in highly deterministic Stoicism Neoplatonism and Gnostic Manichaeism got it right in their view.

Every one of over 50 early church fathers got it wrong on human freedom choice. Again I stop again. So what's he assuming that he knows everything. Even though there are not 50 early church fathers that wrote a book on the subject he is assuming based upon what fragmentary material we have left that he can come up with a universal perspective.

So from fragmentary stuff. And many of these are church fathers did not address this in the fragments we have. How do you know what they believed. You don't know that. You don't know that please. This is not how you do.

This is not how you respect church history. This is not how you do church history. Astonishing. Anyway in their view did it. Did it. Even Augustine himself admitted that he had tried but failed to continue in the essential and unanimous Christian doctrine of free will throughout the first four centuries.

What Wilson will do is he will use this kind of language. He will. He will make an argument through use of language without ever substantiating it. Just the language itself becomes the argument. So did then he at least provides the quote.