Is Protestantism founded upon Manichaeanism?

[Catholic_Dude]

I came across a very interesting quote from Catholic Encyclopedia today on the topic of justification:
Since, according to Luther, concupiscence, of which death alone shall free us, constitutes the essence of original sin, all our actions are corrupted by it. Concupiscence as an intrinsically evil disposition, has instilled its deadly poison into the soul, its faculties, and its action (cf. Möhler, “Symbolik”, sec. 6). But here we are forced to ask: If all our moral actions be the outcome of an internal necessity and constraint, how can Luther still speak of sin in the true meaning of the word? Does not original sin become identical with the “Evil Substance” of the Manichæans, as later on Luther’s follower, Flacius Illyricus, quite logically admitted?
I never put two and two together here, but this quote does seem to make sense. If, as Protestants believe, fallen man has a “sin nature” such that concupiscence is essentially a permanently contaminated spring that can only spring filth, then how does this differ from the Manichaean idea of an “evil substance” in creation right along side a “good substance”?

This concept is why Protestants believe justification is by imputation, where Luther described man as a pile of dung that can only appear righteous if the “Righteousness of Christ” cover it like snow covering the pile of dung to hide the true sight and smell.

As I said above, I never put two and two together until this article, but from what I can see the Protestant idea of the fall (and consequently salvation) has its roots in Manichaeanism, even if they dont realize it.

Does anyone know more about this issue or have any comments?

Id like to know more Flacius Illyricus as well.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Any takers?

I realize the term “founded upon” is pretty strong, so I think it is better to say that it unknowingly draws from key principles of Manichaeanism, specifically the concept of an evil substance.

 

[Hastrman]

Actually I have read that the Huguenots were influenced by some of the Cathar remnants in the South of France; the Cathari (Greek for “Pure Ones”–which in Latin is “Puritan”, who are also Calvinists like the Huguenots) were Manichaeans in the 12th-13th centuries.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Actually I have read that the Huguenots were influenced by some of the Cathar remnants in the South of France; the Cathari (Greek for “Pure Ones”–which in Latin is “Puritan”, who are also Calvinists like the Huguenots) were Manichaeans in the 12th-13th centuries.

I looked up the Huguenots at NewAdvent and there was no direct mention of Manichaeans or Cathari, but the Cathari article did mention a connection with the Manichaeans and that they were in the Huguenot area so I wouldnt be surprised if there was influence.

 

[sandusky]

I came across a very interesting quote from Catholic Encyclopedia today on the topic of justification:
Since, according to Luther, concupiscence, of which death alone shall free us, constitutes the essence of original sin, all our actions are corrupted by it. Concupiscence as an intrinsically evil disposition, has instilled its deadly poison into the soul, its faculties, and its action (cf. Möhler, “Symbolik”, sec. 6). But here we are forced to ask: If all our moral actions be the outcome of an internal necessity and constraint, how can Luther still speak of sin in the true meaning of the word? Does not original sin become identical with the “Evil Substance” of the Manichæans, as later on Luther’s follower, Flacius Illyricus, quite logically admitted?
I never put two and two together here, but this quote does seem to make sense. If, as Protestants believe, fallen man has a “sin nature” such that concupiscence is essentially a permanently contaminated spring that can only spring filth, then how does this differ from the Manichaean idea of an “evil substance” in creation right along side a “good substance”?

This concept is why Protestants believe justification is by imputation, where Luther described man as a pile of dung that can only appear righteous if the “Righteousness of Christ” cover it like snow covering the pile of dung to hide the true sight and smell.

As I said above, I never put two and two together until this article, but from what I can see the Protestant idea of the fall (and consequently salvation) has its roots in Manichaeanism, even if they dont realize it.

Does anyone know more about this issue or have any comments?

Id like to know more Flacius Illyricus as well.

Does Luther ever speak of Christianity as being dualistic? Don’t think so.

In Romans 7, Paul states that within even the redeemed a law of evil, and a law of sin is present, and states that the flesh and spirit within each believer war against one another (Gal 5); do you consider Paul to be a dualist? Or, yourself? Catholics do believe everything that is presented in Scripture; don’t they?

IMO, you should read the Catholic encyclopedia less, and the God’s revealed word more.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Does Luther ever speak of Christianity as being dualistic? Don’t think so.

Im not saying he did so intentionally, but it was the logical conclusion as Luther’s disciple Flacius concluded.

In Romans 7, Paul states that within even the redeemed a law of evil, and a law of sin is present, and states that the flesh and spirit within each believer war against one another (Gal 5); do you consider Paul to be a dualist? Or, yourself? Catholics do believe everything that is presented in Scripture; don’t they?

You must not understand what is going on here. The idea that human nature is corrupt in the sense it is a blob of “sin” is a heretical gnostic notion. And this fits right along the dung-snow analogy described above.
What Paul describes are the effects of the fall, which are not sin themselves. James 1:12ff shows sin occurs when someone gives into lustful temptation, thus these temptations are not sin them self.

IMO, you should read the Catholic encyclopedia less, and the God’s revealed word more.

You do realize that virtually every heretic in history used that line?

 

[sandusky]

Dude, the Catholic encyclopedia has not been around for all of recorded history.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Dude, the Catholic encyclopedia has not been around for all of recorded history.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Contarini]

I came across a very interesting quote from Catholic Encyclopedia today on the topic of justification:Since, according to Luther, concupiscence, of which death alone shall free us, constitutes the essence of original sin, all our actions are corrupted by it. Concupiscence as an intrinsically evil disposition, has instilled its deadly poison into the soul, its faculties, and its action (cf. Möhler, “Symbolik”, sec. 6). But here we are forced to ask: If all our moral actions be the outcome of an internal necessity and constraint, how can Luther still speak of sin in the true meaning of the word? Does not original sin become identical with the “Evil Substance” of the Manichæans, as later on Luther’s follower, Flacius Illyricus, quite logically admitted?
I never put two and two together here, but this quote does seem to make sense. If, as Protestants believe, fallen man has a “sin nature” such that concupiscence is essentially a permanently contaminated spring that can only spring filth, then how does this differ from the Manichaean idea of an “evil substance” in creation right along side a “good substance”?

This concept is why Protestants believe justification is by imputation, where Luther described man as a pile of dung that can only appear righteous if the “Righteousness of Christ” cover it like snow covering the pile of dung to hide the true sight and smell.

As I said above, I never put two and two together until this article, but from what I can see the Protestant idea of the fall (and consequently salvation) has its roots in Manichaeanism, even if they dont realize it.

Does anyone know more about this issue or have any comments?

Id like to know more Flacius Illyricus as well.

The difference is that no form of Protestantism thinks that this sinfulness is inherent in human beings by virtue of being human or by virtue of having bodies. The CE ought to have mentioned that Flacius was condemned by the Lutherans as a whole and his view did not find any followers as far as I know. In claiming that Flacius is somehow representing the logical outworking of the Lutheran position, the CE is guilty of caricature (it’s like saying that Fr. Feeney’s position on the damnation of non-Catholics is the “real” Catholic position even though the Catholic Church condemned him).

And of course many other Protestants reject the Lutheran/Calvinist understanding of human nature. My own Wesleyan tradition, for instance, teaches that humans can be entirely sanctified in this life.

Another point: the view that concupiscence is itself sinful can be supported from the writings of Augustine. Augustine did claim that theoretically someone could become free from sin by grace, but he didn’t seem to think (in his later writings) that anyone had ever done this (except possibly the Blessed Virgin).

Edwin

 

[Truthstalker]

Does anyone know more about this issue or have any comments?.

You need to vastly increase your understanding of Reformed thought and Manichaeanism before you make such a statement. Calvin tends to get blasted for an overenthusiasm for the sovereignty of God, but I have NEVER heard anyone who knew anything of him accusing him of any sort of dualism. The Manichees believed flesh was evil, spirit good, and had an elaborate system of spiritual powers Augustine describes to some degree in his Confessions and elsewhere - one totally alien to Calvin. With Calvin, man messes up both in the spirit and the flesh and has no hope at all aside from the grace of God. With Calvin discussions of angels and demons are pushed aside in favor of considering the wrath and mercy of God towards man.

This sort of post smacks of the bending or discarding of truth for the promotion of the Catholic cause - after bitter experiences, something I am wary of. Among other things, anytime I see the term “Protestantism” I suspect the author is erecting a straw man. When someone reads a twisted paragraph in the CE and jumps to this kind of conclusion, I wonder about the Catholic Church’s allegiance to truth, if this is the sort of thing its apologists promote. This is far from an isolated incident of this sort of behavior.

Calvin drew his understanding of imputed righteousness from the Scripture. It is a baseless and vile accusation to say that he drew it from Manichees. If you want to attack him, at least understand him before you launch this silly an argument. There is plenty to critique in Calvin if you take the time.

I know very little about Luther. His world view and training were Augustinian. Part of that would have been is a refutation of Manichaeanism.

If you want to advance your argument, consider some monastic tendencies within Catholicism: fasting, vows of poverty, celibacy: the pleasures of the flesh must be overcome for spiritual growth. Flesh evil, spirit good. Catholicism would seem to contain more that tends towards being an heir of the Manichees than Protestant thought endures . Read about Jerome’s attitudes towards marriage and bathing, for example. In contrast Calvin would probably refer you to that passage in Colossians where Paul talks about disciplines regarding the flesh being of no value for spiritual growth. Who here is closer to the Manichees? Not the Reformed.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The difference is that no form of Protestantism thinks that this sinfulness is inherent in human beings by virtue of being human or by virtue of having bodies.

I dont think the issue ever was “by virtue of being human or having bodies”.

The CE ought to have mentioned that Flacius was condemned by the Lutherans as a whole and his view did not find any followers as far as I know. In claiming that Flacius is somehow representing the logical outworking of the Lutheran position, the CE is guilty of caricature (it’s like saying that Fr. Feeney’s position on the damnation of non-Catholics is the “real” Catholic position even though the Catholic Church condemned him).

I looked into this and there is a significant point that should be made. “Lutheranism” as we know it today is more formulated on Melanchthon’s views that “what Luther really taught”. From what I read Melanchthon toned down or disagreed with things Luther taught. Flacius on the otherhand claimed to be sticking with what Luther taught and he claimed Meanchon was not being faithful. There was bad blood on a number of issues in Flacius’ life (he was arrogant), especially against Melanchton, such that people started to not like him.
I found online this issue discussed in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopdia, which should be a respectable Protestant source, says this on the third page of that article:
Flacius maintained that original sin is the substance of man himself and not an accidend as Stirgel taught. This doctrine was chiefly aimed at the Snergists. Flacius was altogether orthodox on this point. The whole controversy amounted to nothing since he attached to the word substantia two different meanings, it was a mere quibble of words, and yet there were men like Hesshusen who absurdly believed that Flacius considered the devil as the creator of substance.
I agree with you that the CE should have said more, but Im not convinced yet that this is a caricature in that Flachius was misrepresenting Luther or the logical outcomes.

As for Fr Feeney being “condemned”, when I looked into that issue the thing he was condemned for was not showing up to a Church court in Rome, none of his views were condemned. It looks like he took a hard line because apparently even before Vatican 2 there were professors taking extremely lax views on Salvation outside the Church (another issue for another thread).

And of course many other Protestants reject the Lutheran/Calvinist understanding of human nature. My own Wesleyan tradition, for instance, teaches that humans can be entirely sanctified in this life.

The controversy here though is that if you reject the Lutheran/Calvinist then are you truly faithful to the Reformation? After all, the central tenet of the Reformation which is Justification by Imputation by Faith Alone is the only logical solution to the Lutheran view of Original Sin.

Another point: the view that concupiscence is itself sinful can be supported from the writings of Augustine. Augustine did claim that theoretically someone could become free from sin by grace, but he didn’t seem to think (in his later writings) that anyone had ever done this (except possibly the Blessed Virgin).

I would like to see quotes for these claims. The Catholic idea is that concupiscence is the temptation or “urge” to sin (James 1:12ff) but not sin itself. For example a damaged tire on a bicycle would make it harder to drive straight and easier to go off the road, but it is only bad if you go off the road. Similarly concupiscence is not sin itself but doesnt help us avoid it. The Protestant idea of concupiscence is that it is at the root of original sin and that itself is sin and like a poisons spring that can only produce filth, and that this isnt repaired even after Baptism but remains the rest of one’s life. That is why Protestants have to resort to Imputation which covers this sin rather than eradicate it.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You need to vastly increase your understanding of Reformed thought and Manichaeanism before you make such a statement. Calvin tends to get blasted for an overenthusiasm for the sovereignty of God, but I have NEVER heard anyone who knew anything of him accusing him of any sort of dualism. The Manichees believed flesh was evil, spirit good, and had an elaborate system of spiritual powers Augustine describes to some degree in his Confessions and elsewhere - one totally alien to Calvin. With Calvin, man messes up both in the spirit and the flesh and has no hope at all aside from the grace of God. With Calvin discussions of angels and demons are pushed aside in favor of considering the wrath and mercy of God towards man.

This sort of post smacks of the bending or discarding of truth for the promotion of the Catholic cause - after bitter experiences, something I am wary of. Among other things, anytime I see the term “Protestantism” I suspect the author is erecting a straw man. When someone reads a twisted paragraph in the CE and jumps to this kind of conclusion, I wonder about the Catholic Church’s allegiance to truth, if this is the sort of thing its apologists promote. This is far from an isolated incident of this sort of behavior.

Calvin drew his understanding of imputed righteousness from the Scripture. It is a baseless and vile accusation to say that he drew it from Manichees. If you want to attack him, at least understand him before you launch this silly an argument. There is plenty to critique in Calvin if you take the time.

I know very little about Luther. His world view and training were Augustinian. Part of that would have been is a refutation of Manichaeanism.

If you want to advance your argument, consider some monastic tendencies within Catholicism: fasting, vows of poverty, celibacy: the pleasures of the flesh must be overcome for spiritual growth. Flesh evil, spirit good. Catholicism would seem to contain more that tends towards being an heir of the Manichees than Protestant thought endures . Read about Jerome’s attitudes towards marriage and bathing, for example. In contrast Calvin would probably refer you to that passage in Colossians where Paul talks about disciplines regarding the flesh being of no value for spiritual growth. Who here is closer to the Manichees? Not the Reformed.

I understand you are passionate about this, but I tried to make it clear this was Manichaean type principles but not full blown Manichaeanism I was accusing them of.

I dont see where I have badly misrepresented the Protestant side, you claim I did, but you didnt really go into the issue of original sin and the NEED for imputation. Imputation stems from the Protestant idea that our nature is sinful in a sense that it permanently poisoned and not able to be cleaned, from here the “solution” is imputing the “righteousness of Christ” to “cover” this sin so that it appears righteous but is not actually clean/righteous. This is the background for where the Manichaean-like issue of a evil substance arises and the Catholic is left wondering how this is possible apart from resurrecting Manichaean principles. Catholics are not saying the Protestants deliberately went off to mold themselves around Manichean principles.