Is Calvinism a rebranded form of gnosticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoheleth1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qoheleth1

Guest
I have been conducting extensive research on the Reformed tradition and what I have discovered thus far is nothing short of breathtaking. Not in the usual, awe-striking way, either.

The theology of John Calvin seems to be a loose (or perhaps repackaged?) form of gnosticism. Much like the gnostics, Calvinists believe in “classes” of the elect. Those who are saved no matter what they do, those who are saved but can lose it, and those who are not saved nor will they ever be, no matter they choices or professions of faith. In the reformed mindset, people simply cannot make a decision as to follow Christ.

The most disturbing aspect of their theology with the exception of Limited Atonement is the idea of Total Depravity. I agree that human beings are inclined toward sin and will always sin–they cannot save themselves nor can they live a sinless life–but the notion that individuals cannot make a conscious choice and have no free will is contrary to the Gospel. The idea of total depravity (all of you is corrupt and wretched except your spirit, if you are the special “elect”) also brings into question the incarnation. If total depravity is true and Jesus was fully human and fully divine, then would that not mean that Jesus, too, was born in sin? Also, the monergism expressed by Reformed theology attributes evil deeds to God despite the multitude of scriptures that suggest otherwise.

Individual election based on no merit but on a “special” form of knowledge is also gnostic in a sense. Does this not imply the pre-existence of the soul?

What are your thoughts?
 
I am not versed in Calvinism, but based upon your post I would agree that Calvin’s assertion of God committing evil acts falls in line with the gnostic dualist notion of good and evil, where they are equal and opposed forces rather than evil just being a deprivation of good.

It’s interesting to hear that Calvin “baptized” the caste system and applied it to Christians under the guise of salvic classes.
 
I agree, there are similarities. The world is basically evil, as are people. There is an emphasis on “spirit” and the idea that you are to re-join the spiritual world that is your real home, there is also an emphasis on emotion vs. reason, etc. Gnostic ideas have been floating around since the 2nd c., and they are very appealing, particularly since they are often confused with orthodox Christianity. There is actually a book on the subject, “Against the Protestant Gnostics” by Philip Lee.
 
What about the concept of “total depravity” as it pertains to the incarnation?
 
I’ll try my best answering briefly as someone who still has a lot to learn.
Qoheleth1 said:
Reformed tradition
Click to expand...
There are still many different camps within it.
Qoheleth1 said:
Calvinists believe in “classes” of the elect. Those who are saved no matter what they do, those who are saved but can lose it, and those who are not saved nor will they ever be, no matter they choices or professions of faith.
Click to expand...
This is inaccurate. Those in the elect undergo sanctification. There’s no “class” where the saved can lose salvation.
Qoheleth1 said:
Total Depravity
Click to expand...
Limited Atonement is the real problem. Total Depravity isn’t exclusive to Calvinism. All forms of Protestantism with the exception of maybe Anglo-Catholics and a few others, teach Total Depravity, which is from Augustine of Hippo.
Qoheleth1 said:
the notion that individuals cannot make a conscious choice and have no free will is contrary to the Gospel
Click to expand...
Calvin didn’t claim people don’t have free will. He did say people have free will but the Fall inhibits people from seeing clearly.
Qoheleth1 said:
If total depravity is true and Jesus was fully human and fully divine, then would that not mean that Jesus, too, was born in sin?
Click to expand...
Humanity is totally depraved due to the Fall. Think of it this way, if humans have original sin, then shouldn’t Jesus have original sin?
Qoheleth1 said:
Also, the monergism expressed by Reformed theology attributes evil deeds to God despite the multitude of scriptures that suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, evil deeds are due to the Fall.
Qoheleth1 said:
Individual election based on no merit but on a “special” form of knowledge is also gnostic in a sense. Does this not imply the pre-existence of the soul?
Click to expand...
The elect don’t receive special knowledge. The Holy Spirit opens the eyes of the elect, using an analogy, to existing knowledge. It doesn’t imply pre-existence.
 
Last edited:
There are still many different camps within it.
Click to expand...
Calvinism is virtually synonymous with “reformed Christianity” in these days. As a matter of fact, it has been for centuries.

Anglicanism resulted from the English Reformation which is a different from the continental reformation in many ways…
This is inaccurate. Those in the elect undergo sanctification. There’s no “class” where the saved can lose salvation.
Click to expand...
Calvin taught unconditional election, meaning man has no (name removed by moderator)ut as to whether he receives salvation. It is a mongergistic theology which places everything under God’s decree and values reason over trust and faith. This is class based, whether two-tiered or three: the elect and the damned. Nothing can be changed.
Limited Atonement is the real problem. Total Depravity isn’t exclusive to Calvinism. All forms of Protestantism with the exception of maybe Anglo-Catholics and a few others, teach Total Depravity, which is from Augustine of Hippo.
Click to expand...
Total Depravity should be rephrased “total inability.” The concept of Total Inability is contradicted by scripture in virtually ever book from both testaments.
Calvin didn’t claim people don’t have free will. He did say people have free will but the Fall inhibits people from seeing clearly.
Click to expand...
Calvinism does not teach free will. The doctrine of double predestination implies no free will, as well as total inability, as man is so corrupt he cannot even make the conscious decision to come to Christ. Calvinism teaches “compatibilism.”
Humanity is totally depraved due to the Fall. Think of it this way, if humans have original sin, then shouldn’t Jesus have original sin?
Click to expand...
Jesus did not have original sin. He was perfect and sinless. Hence the issue with the Calvinist view of TD and Total inability. Where does human responsibility come into play if the future is closed? This stems from a misinterpretation of the term “sovereignty.”

2 Cor. 5:21 and 1 John 3:5 for the question of Jesus’ sinless nature.

Right, The Fall did occur due to human error, but theological determinism (Calvinism) presents everything that comes to pass as God’s decree. From Calvin himself:
*
“We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.”
Click to expand...
The elect don’t receive special knowledge. The Holy Spirit opens the eyes of the elect, using an analogy, to existing knowledge. It doesn’t imply pre-existence.
Click to expand...
The elect do receive the special knowledge that their destiny is secure from “before eternity past” on what basis? It must be special knowledge, considering a human being cannot make such a presumption.
 
Last edited:
Interesting take on this. I do notice similar ideas being recycled through the ages: Arianism and the JWs, for instance. The LDS and Islam share many similarities in their basic foundations and their histories immediately after the deaths of their founders.

My take is that a malevolent spirit incites men to hold these regurgitated ideas from age to age.
 
Last edited:
Qoheleth1 said:
Anglicanism resulted from the English Reformation which is a different from the continental reformation in many ways…
Click to expand...
That pretty much proves my point. Not only that, some Reformed churches find other Reformed subordinate standards as defective, which hints at a diversity of views on different matters. It’s unhelpful to pretend there aren’t different camps within the Reformed tradition.
Qoheleth1 said:
This is class based, whether two-tiered or three: the elect and the damned. Nothing can be changed.
Click to expand...
This differs from Catholicism how? The Catholic Church believes in hell and Heaven.
Qoheleth1 said:
Total Depravity should be rephrased “total inability.” The concept of Total Inability is contradicted by scripture in virtually ever book from both testaments.
Click to expand...
Umm, Romans 3 comes to mind.
Qoheleth1 said:
Calvinism does not teach free will. The doctrine of double predestination implies no free will, as well as total inability, as man is so corrupt he cannot even make the conscious decision to come to Christ. Calvinism teaches “compatibilism.”
Click to expand...
Qoheleth1 said:
The elect do receive the special knowledge that their destiny is secure from “before eternity past” on what basis? It must be special knowledge, considering a human being cannot make such a presumption.
Click to expand...
 
That pretty much proves my point. Not only that, some Reformed churches find other Reformed subordinate standards as defective, which hints at a diversity of views on different matters. It’s unhelpful to pretend there aren’t different camps within the Reformed tradition.
Click to expand...
I agree; some Calvinists only subscribe to three points, others 5, some one, etc… Either way, the English Reformation was different due to less emphasis on theology and more on the politics of the Church.
This differs from Catholicism how? The Catholic Church believes in hell and Heaven.
Click to expand...
Those who choose to have faith are predestined to everlasting life with Christ. The difference is unconditional election versus conditional election. The grace has already been offered; now one must make the conscious decision to give their life to Christ and maintain their faith, thereby sealing the promise guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. Read Ephesians 1-2 in context without a biased mindset and you will see it’s more than it’s thought out to be…
Umm, Romans 3 comes to mind.
Click to expand...
This is why context is important. Romans 3 was speaking of the lack of righteousness by not seeking God fully (i.e relying on ceremonial and civil laws handed to the Israelites like circumcision and purity rituals). It was not speaking of people having the inability to seek God, rather they forsook their responsibiliy to do so.

Hebrews 11:6 comes to mind. Jeremiah 29:13. Deuteronomy 30: 15-20. Revelation 22. Revelation 21 and 20. Romans 1 and Romans 10. David was a man after “God’s own heart.” Further, the men who existed before the giving of the law (Job, Noah, Enoch, etc).

Romans 3, in essence, is saying living like an Israelite or an idolater is not seeking God. One must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek him. Heb 11:6.
 
Yes, and it is unfortunate, for these men take certain elements of scripture and isolate them to build an intellectual foundation for their theology. This is why reading scripture in context is important so we do not forget the purpose of the Gospel’s saving message.
 
Which makes their theology more disturbing.

Calvinism is clearly a distortion of the Gospel and, as far as I am concerned, the concoction of a prideful man who viewed himself as more important than Christ and reduced our Lord’s love into a game of favorites and not of faith. Real faith, anyways.
 
Not to mention the obvious problem of the incarnation. One cannot logically hold to Total Inability and then say Jesus was sinless. But, our friend did say that it is possible Jesus was born with a sin nature, which is nearing blasphemy.
 
Thank you! There’s little the early Protestants said that hadn’t been said by Augustine.
 
Qoheleth1 said:
, those who are saved but can lose it,
Click to expand...
Are you sure this is accurate? Sounds incorrect to me. Calvinists believe there are the elect and the non-elect. There are not different classes among the elect.
 
Last edited:
Qoheleth1 said:
but the notion that individuals cannot make a conscious choice and have no free will is contrary to the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Calvinists will say man can make choices. Those choices absent the Spirit’s regenerating work, however, will be inclined toward sin, evil and selfishness even when they could be defended as “good choices”.
Qoheleth1 said:
The idea of total depravity (all of you is corrupt and wretched except your spirit, if you are the special “elect”)
Click to expand...
Even the elect are totally depraved until the moment of regeneration.
Qoheleth1 said:
If total depravity is true and Jesus was fully human and fully divine, then would that not mean that Jesus, too, was born in sin?
Click to expand...
No, because man was created good. Depravity is not intrinsic to human nature.
Qoheleth1 said:
Individual election based on no merit but on a “special” form of knowledge is also gnostic in a sense.
Click to expand...
The merit is Christ’s salvific work applied to the elect by their faith in Christ. The elect have no more knowledge than the non-elect. They are simply chosen for election.
 
Last edited:
Qoheleth1 said:
Calvinism is virtually synonymous with “reformed Christianity” in these days. As a matter of fact, it has been for centuries.
Click to expand...
Capital-R Reformed Christianity is Calvinist by definition. Lutherans are reformed but not Reformed. It’s a source of confusion.
Qoheleth1 said:
Anglicanism resulted from the English Reformation which is a different from the continental reformation in many ways…
Click to expand...
Reformation can’t be divided into continental vs. Anglican. Continental includes Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, who disagreed all over the place. And the Anglican Reformation includes strains of each (though not much Zwingli). The main distinction between the Anglican and continental reformations is ecclesial, not theological.
 
Qoheleth1 said:
. But, our friend did say that it is possible Jesus was born with a sin nature, which is nearing blasphemy.
Click to expand...
Who said this? @ATraveller said no such thing; you just misunderstood the point he or she tried to make.

The following paragraph is from a Reformed scholar.
First, it tends to neglect the fact that fallenness is not intrinsic to humanity. Fallenness is a not a “part” of humanity that must be healed. It is a condition of moral corruption and a propensity toward sin. All that is required for the Son’s genuine incarnation and his representative work on our behalf is the assumption of a full human nature (body and soul), not a fallen human nature. Adam was fully human prior to his fall into sin. And Christ is fully human even though he does not possess the corruption of other human beings.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I just think his theology is another tragic failure of the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura. His gnosis comes from misinterpretation and therefore failure to know the nature and will of God. One of the errors of the reformers is the idea of total depravity related to man having a sin nature, a completely changed nature as a result of the Fall from which he is completely unable to refrain from sin, rather than the chief aspect of original sin being spiritual separation from God, ‘apart from whom man can do nothing’, John 15:5. Including refraining from sin and retaining moral integrity. One of the ugliest “Christian” theologies either way
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top