Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 1 of 405 (303132)
04-11-2006 8:14 AM


This question occurred to me while reading an article about the Celtic theologian, Pelagius. In the article it was stated that Pelagius objected to the doctrine of Original Sin as being 'unchristian' and 'influenced by Manicheanism'.
For those who don't know, Manicheanism is the belief that the material world is evil (having been created by an evil spirit such as Satan), but that human beings contain a spark of spirit that connects them to God.
In the early Christian era this was a common belief (so common that the Church fathers are constantly railing against it). Coupled with the belief that salvation could only be achieved by receiving some secret knowledge about Christ's teaching, this formed the basis of what we term 'Gnostic Christianity'.
Now, because Gnosticism was persecuted by the church, and because, in this century, we've had the astonishing good fortune to rediscover some of the early Gnostic gospels, there is a romantic glow attached to the term Gnosticism that seems to blind people to what Gnostics actually believed, i.e. that all flesh is evil, and that only an elect few can be saved.
In modern times, the form of Christianity that seems to come closest to these beliefs, particularly in the doctrines of Total Hereditary Depravity, Limited Atonement and Efficacious Grace, is Calvinism. For those unfamiliar with these doctrines, here's a quick précis:
Total Hereditary Depravity
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.
Limited Atonement
Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.
Efficacious Grace
In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion.
(all quotations from Comparison of Calvinism and Arminianism)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 10:14 AM JavaMan has replied
 Message 400 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-16-2017 12:46 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 405 (303153)
04-11-2006 9:59 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 405 (303165)
04-11-2006 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
04-11-2006 8:14 AM


I don't see the connection you are trying to make. There is no secret knowledge implied in Calvinism, and Calvinists are very anti-Gnostic. The gist of the three elements you list is that the Fall made us unable to recognize God, Christ died only for those who believe on Him (and nobody knows who those are except God), and it is God who saves -- that's the efficacious grace part. His imparting grace inwardly to those He chooses is nothing like some secret knowledge. The idea is that we can't save ourselves, He must do it. There is nothing gnostic about any of this that I can see.
ABE: In fact, by contrast, Gnosticism is all about cultivating this special knowledge by meditative and other practices, a form of works in a way, which is completely the opposite of the Calvinist emphasis on God's sovereignty in salvation.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 10:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 04-11-2006 8:14 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2006 11:14 AM Faith has replied
 Message 5 by JavaMan, posted 04-11-2006 11:44 AM Faith has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 4 of 405 (303181)
04-11-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
04-11-2006 10:14 AM


so it's not identical to gnosticism. the point he's making is that these three characteristics are found in gnosticism. and since gnosticism is older, it would logically follow that they might have been born from it. just because calvanists view gnosticism as heresy doesn't mean they aren't wrong. just because neo-nazi's hate black people doesn't mean they suddenly didn't originate in africa like the rest of humanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 10:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 12:10 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 5 of 405 (303189)
04-11-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
04-11-2006 10:14 AM


Manicheanism and a Fallen world
I don't see the connection you are trying to make. There is no secret knowledge implied in Calvinism, and Calvinists are very anti-Gnostic. The gist of the three elements you list is that the Fall made us unable to recognize God, Christ died only for those who believe on Him (and nobody knows who those are except God), and it is God who saves -- that's the efficacious grace part. His imparting grace inwardly to those He chooses is nothing like some secret knowledge. The idea is that we can't save ourselves, He must do it. There is nothing gnostic about any of this that I can see.
My main argument (after Pelagius) is that the Calvinist doctrine of the Fall seems not entirely dissimilar to Manicheanism.
Can you explain the difference?
And for any Gnostics reading this, can you explain why your Manicheanism is different from the Calvinist doctrine of the Fall?

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 10:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 12:22 PM JavaMan has replied
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 1:15 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 405 (303198)
04-11-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by macaroniandcheese
04-11-2006 11:14 AM


They are not found in gnosticism. That was my point. There is no similarity whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-11-2006 11:14 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 405 (303202)
04-11-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JavaMan
04-11-2006 11:44 AM


Re: Manicheanism and a Fallen world
Maybe you didn't say enough in your OP to make the connection then, as I don't see anything similar to the Fall in gnosticism. Except perhaps the Eastern ideas such as Hinduism's Maya and the Buddhist idea of "ignorance" which I usually think of as distorted remnants of the knowledge of the Fall, and they are explained in completely different terms than the Fall. According to those views you can correct your own inborn ignorance by diligent pursuit of the right means. This is completely at odds with Calvinism which puts salvation completely in God's hands and sees salvation as a supernatural gift from above. The Fall is clearly shown in the Bible and without it the salvation of Christ makes no sense.
Pelagius was condemned as a heretic for his man-centered understanding of salvation, and it seems to me that gnosticism is also man-centered in its idea of secret knowledge that can be cultivated, all in contrast with Calvinism which emphasizes the sovereignty of God, giving credit for salvation completely to God.
But also, if your focus is on the Fall, why are you targeting Calvinism? The Fall was part of Christian theology from the earliest days. Luther certainly affirmed it. So did the Roman church.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 12:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JavaMan, posted 04-11-2006 11:44 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by JavaMan, posted 04-12-2006 7:58 AM Faith has replied
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 11-25-2014 9:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 405 (303220)
04-11-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JavaMan
04-11-2006 11:44 AM


Another difference
Another difference between the Fall and Gnosticism: The gnostic ideas of ignorance and blindness, which are the closest ideas I can find to the Fall, whitewash, just as fallen nature is fond of doing, the fundamental concept of the Fall which is sin, or moral guilt before God. This of course calls for a different kind of remedy than sin does.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 01:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JavaMan, posted 04-11-2006 11:44 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ReverendDG, posted 04-11-2006 11:24 PM Faith has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 9 of 405 (303388)
04-11-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
04-11-2006 1:15 PM


Re: Another difference
Well i think you need to do more research then, the gnostics do believe in a fall,but it was a different type of fall
good site on some basic things http://www.crystalinks.com/gnosticism.html
In the Gnostic view, the unconscious self of man is consubstantial with the Godhead, but because of a tragic fall it is thrown into a world that is completely alien to its real being.
Through revelation from above, man becomes conscious of his origin, essence, and transcedent destiny. Gnostic revelation is to be distinguished both from philosophical enlightenment, because it cannot be acquired by the forces of reason, and from Christian revelation, because it is not rooted in history and transmitted by Scripture.
this is interesting -
he development of Christian doctrine was to a large extent a reaction against Gnosticism. The formulation of creedal symbols, the canonization of the New Testament Scriptures, and the emphasis on episcopal authority all were made necessary by the Gnostics' claims.
I have this book called the secret goddess and the author talks about this, he says from his research that there was two forms of christianity literal and gnostic, interesting anyway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 1:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 11:37 PM ReverendDG has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 405 (303396)
04-11-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ReverendDG
04-11-2006 11:24 PM


Re: Another difference
Doesn't look to me like I was all that wrong. The fall mentioned isn't even described but the implication that a revelation of one's original being is the goal certainly implies what I said about "ignorance" being the gnostic approximation to a fall, which has nothing to do with sin as the Christian fall does. As I said.
And of course the Gnostics claim to be a legitimate strand of Christianity. What else is new? But they were declared heretics by the mainstream church for good reason. Their doctrine is not Christian, certainly not in keeping with the scriptures.
In a certain sense a fair amount of Christian doctrine WAS formulated against the Gnostics as they were a major heresy that had to be answered, but what this means is that what the scriptures say was explicated to clarify it against the gnostics. Many of the early church writings are dealings with various heresies that spell out the orthodox doctrine in answer to them.
There were many "forms of Christianity" in the early years in THAT sense, in the sense of many heresies. The same situation prevails today as well. There are more heretics than true believers. That's always been the case and will no doubt continue or even grow up to the end of time.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 11:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ReverendDG, posted 04-11-2006 11:24 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ReverendDG, posted 04-12-2006 1:25 AM Faith has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 11 of 405 (303413)
04-12-2006 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
04-11-2006 11:37 PM


Re: Another difference
Doesn't look to me like I was all that wrong. The fall mentioned isn't even described but the implication that a revelation of one's original being is the goal certainly implies what I said about "ignorance" being the gnostic approximation to a fall, which has nothing to do with sin as the Christian fall does. As I said.
what are you talking about? ignorance? ignorance of what?
the gnostics believe this is a fallen world, they have another reason for its fallen nature,but that is pretty much spliting hairs, if the parallel is they both believe reality is fallen
And of course the Gnostics claim to be a legitimate strand of Christianity. What else is new? But they were declared heretics by the mainstream church for good reason. Their doctrine is not Christian, certainly not in keeping with the scriptures.
no it doesn't follow what the church at the time believed, you can interpret it well enough for the gnostics claims, they used the NT and OT to support thier beliefs
There were many "forms of Christianity" in the early years in THAT sense, in the sense of many heresies. The same situation prevails today as well. There are more heretics than true believers. That's always been the case and will no doubt continue or even grow up to the end of time.
see thats the problem they are only heresies to some groups, to others they are orthodoxy, even dogma, funny dogma is secret knowlege, wonder where that came from?
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-12-2006 01:25 AM

One mans herecy is another Mans dogma..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 11:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 2:15 AM ReverendDG has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 405 (303419)
04-12-2006 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ReverendDG
04-12-2006 1:25 AM


Re: Another difference
As I understand it, Gnosticism says we are all born "ignorant," meaning something like ignorant of our original being as part of God. According to them, something changed our status, that according to your link they call a "fall" but I've always heard this change called "ignorance," which is like the Hindu concept of Maya, or the veil that hides our true nature from us. A sort of forgetting of our original state. There may be different shades of definitions of all these terms, but this is how I remember them and it seems to fit with what you posted.
So according to the gnostics we have to get back to our original state of being, our original self or spark or whatever they call it, and they have techniques for seeking that. A sort of Enlightenment I think, a flash of understanding of our true nature or something like that, that they seek by various "secret" disciplines.
They may use the term "fallen" but from what you linked they give no definition of what it means. I'm telling you what I've heard they believe. If I'm wrong you could show me that by finding how they describe this "fall," some evidence of what they mean by the term.
I am quite sure they do not mean what Christians mean by the Fall, which is disobedience of God, a moral Fall, that can only be corrected by the sacrifice of Christ. They mean something we can correct through certain disiplines. The very way they describe it as "a tragic fall" suggests something different. So if you can find what they mean by it, we can go from there.
In any case, sure, all the heresies call themselves the true belief and appeal to the Bible and call the true church heretical. Believe as you please. It's of some concern I would think that you choose the true one, but in any case you're on your own.
I have no idea what you mean about "secret dogma" in relation to Calvinism. A "secret impartation of the Holy Spirit" does not imply any sort of secret KNOWLEDGE or dogma, it simply means that the Holy Spirit works deep in the personality, hidden from view, to turn the person to belief in God. Not at all what the Gnostics mean by secret knowledge, which is some kind of discipline in esoteric stuff. Many heresies have that sort of inner-circle training. Like the Masons. Like the Rosicrucians. The Mormons too.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2006 02:17 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2006 02:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ReverendDG, posted 04-12-2006 1:25 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ReverendDG, posted 04-12-2006 3:23 AM Faith has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 13 of 405 (303426)
04-12-2006 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
04-12-2006 2:15 AM


Re: Another difference
As I understand it, Gnosticism says we are all born "ignorant," meaning something like ignorant of our original being as part of God. According to them, something changed our status, that according to your link they call a "fall" but I've always heard this change called "ignorance,"
hmm have any thing on the ignorace?, the fall itself comes from one of the eminations falling not man, its named sophia or wisdom. Its not saying this world is a veil to another, its saying its not a perfect world, but is created by a demon or demiurge.
to me that sounds a lot like how some christian fundis view the world. I've heard the world refered to as being ruled by satan, and i have read one poster who claims the world is not the real one but will be the next one - ie:the world is an illusion
They may use the term "fallen" but from what you linked they give no definition of what it means. I'm telling you what I've heard they believe. If I'm wrong you could show me that by finding how they describe this "fall," some evidence of what they mean by the term.
they believe that sophia in its want to see the unknown god, fell and created the demiurge that created the universe
a good site for a run down of it Gnosticism - Wikipedia
In any case, sure, all the heresies call themselves the true belief and appeal to the Bible and call the true church heretical. Believe as you please. It's of some concern I would think that you choose the true one, but in any case you're on your own.
there is no true church there never has been, there will never be one, even the disciples didn't agree on anything.
I have no idea what you mean about "secret dogma" in relation to Calvinism. A "secret impartation of the Holy Spirit" does not imply any sort of secret KNOWLEDGE or dogma, it simply means that the Holy Spirit works deep in the personality, hidden from view, to turn the person to belief in God. Not at all what the Gnostics mean by secret knowledge, which is some kind of discipline in esoteric stuff. Many heresies have that sort of inner-circle training. Like the Masons. Like the Rosicrucians. The Mormons too.
then you didn't really get my meaning, i was refering to the orignal meaning of dogma, which is secret knowlege, we are talking about gnostics who are all about knowlege. i was pointing out the irony of our useage of words then and now, no one uses dogma to mean secret knowlege anymore they use it to mean unbendable orthodoxy
and yes the church had secret knowlege take a look at Esoteric Christianity - Wikipedia
people always want to give more meaning to things they believe in than what is really there, sorry but i include the fundamentalist-creationist hackery of Pauls writings, namely the claims of original sin that aren't really there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 2:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 11:45 AM ReverendDG has replied
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 11:56 AM ReverendDG has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 14 of 405 (303458)
04-12-2006 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
04-11-2006 12:22 PM


Re: Manicheanism and a Fallen world
But also, if your focus is on the Fall, why are you targeting Calvinism? The Fall was part of Christian theology from the earliest days. Luther certainly affirmed it. So did the Roman church.
I'm not really picking on Calvinism. It's just that, rightly or wrongly, the Calvinist doctrine is generally considered the most extreme interpretation of the Fall. When you read Calvinist writers you really do get the impression that they believe the whole material world is corrupt and evil.
Pelagius was condemned as a heretic for his man-centered understanding of salvation
Calvin is considered a heretic by the same church that condemns Pelagius. How do you justify accepting its judgement on Pelagius, but ignoring what it says about Calvin?
Maybe you didn't say enough in your OP to make the connection then, as I don't see anything similar to the Fall in gnosticism.
Gnostic groups did have a concept of a Fall, although it seems to have a more cosmic origin and effect than the orthodox concept. However, the result is effectively the same, i.e. the material world, including man, is in a fallen state. The similarity I see between Calvinism/Lutheranism (is that the correct word?) and Gnosticism is in the conception of the material world as utterly corrupt and evil. I concede the point that Gnostics and Calvinists have very different ideas of how to escape that state.
Now for some history (you may want to skip this bit ). Calvinists and Lutherans believe that their doctrine of Original Sin is the traditional Christian belief, but the Catholic Church doesn't agree, and for an outsider like myself one can't help noticing that nothing like the Calvinist doctrine appears in the writings of the Church fathers until Augustine in the 4th/5th century.
It's also striking that, whereas Judaism has no such notion as the Fall, a cosmic Fall does play a central role in contemporary Manichean religions. In these religions the material world is entirely corrupt and evil because of some cosmic Fall, and humans can only approach the Godhead by dying to this material world and to their fleshly selves. For someone approaching all this as history, it does seem plausible that this component of Christian belief originated with these Manichean religions, rather than arising completely independently. And surely it can't be a coincidence that the definitive doctrine of Original Sin originated with Augustine, who for 8-9 years prior to his conversion was a follower of Manicheanism?
Catholic doctrine, though it contains Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin, stops short of declaring that the world is entirely corrupt and evil (that would be Manichean heresy), and leaves some room open for human free will (which is why Calvin accused it of being semi-Pelagian). The problem with the notion that the material world is utterly evil and corrupt is that it suggest there are parts of the universe that are no-go areas for God, which in turn suggests a universe of Manichean dualism rather than a universe ruled by an all-powerful God.
After all this rambling through early Christian history, I realise I've been distracted slightly from my main point, which is that the Calvinist doctrine of the Fall, regardless of whether there's an actual historic link, is effectively Manichean, and that, conversely, modern Gnostics should find themselves more at home with Calvinist theology (or at least its cosmology) than with other orthodox Christian traditions.
(By the way, can you answer an off-topic question I've got about Calvinist theology? I'm quite impressed by the implacable logic of Calvinism, but one thing isn't clear to me. I can understand that logically God must know beforehand who is saved, and that therefore those who are going to be saved must receive the call to be saved, and can't avoid being saved. But does that mean that everyone who has faith is necessarily one of the saved, or is it possible for someone to hear the call, have faith, but not be saved, because they're not predestined to be saved?)

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 04-11-2006 12:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 12:03 PM JavaMan has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 405 (303519)
04-12-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ReverendDG
04-12-2006 3:23 AM


Re: Another difference
Esoteric Christianity is not Christianity, Rev., it's an occultic, and probably gnostic type of something or other but it is not Christianity. It's just another cult or heresy calling itself Chrstian. There is no secret knowledge in Christianity. It's all in the Bible for all to read. The term "dogma" simply means a body of fixed knowledge, it does not mean anything esoteric or secret. Anyone can learn Christian dogma.
OK so the fall means this entity or emanation fell from God's presence? Not the whole human race then. And this entity created a bad god? How far can you get from Christianity's God and the Fall of mankind?
Satan didn't create anything. He seduced Adam and Eve and that earned him his position as lord over humanity. His demons have impersonated "gods" for the majority of the human race, until Jesus came and defeated him by dying on the cross and taking his human prisoners from him.
There is a true church. It is made up of those who know that Jesus died to pay for the sins of those who believe in Him, thus reversing the Fall.
Gnosticism is simply one of the many "Christian" heresies, as I said.
Thanks for explaining what they mean by the "fall."
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2006 11:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ReverendDG, posted 04-12-2006 3:23 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ReverendDG, posted 04-12-2006 4:18 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 33 by ekhalom, posted 04-21-2006 10:16 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024