# Gnostics and Calvinism



## blhowes

Any history buffs out there? I read yesterday at a site that's opposed to Calvinism that the early church rejected the teachings of Calvinism. They mentioned that the Gnostics believed in Calvinism and the church rejected the Gnostics and their teachings.

I don't have time right now to investigate it, so I was wondering if anybody's studied the Gnostics and might shed some light on this? 

Thanks,
Bob


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I would be curious to see what they are saying and where exactly they are coming from, but it sounds like complete garbage to me. 

Calvinism and Gnosticism have nothing in common. The latter was refuted by the Apostles Creed, and all orthodox creeds since, particularly in the Westminster Confession. Gnosticism is a heresy and Calvinism is orthodoxy.


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Any history buffs out there? I read yesterday at a site that's opposed to Calvinism that the early church rejected the teachings of Calvinism. They mentioned that the Gnostics believed in Calvinism and the church rejected the Gnostics and their teachings.
> 
> I don't have time right now to investigate it, so I was wondering if anybody's studied the Gnostics and might shed some light on this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob



Can you say 'anachronism'? 

Anyways, they were probably referring to Manichaenism, which Augustine believed before he became a Christian. According to scholars Mani taught dualism; an angry god vs. a loving god. Some believe that it is the source of which Augustine got his doctrine of original sin and double predestination. Calvin then simply picked up where he left off...

Look at this lovely and warm hearted endorsement of Calvinism:

http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I would be curious to see what they are saying and where exactly they are coming from, but it sounds like complete garbage to me.
> 
> Calvinism and Gnosticism have nothing in common. The latter was refuted by the Apostles Creed, and all orthodox creeds since, particularly in the Westminster Confession. Gnosticism is a heresy and Calvinism is orthodoxy.


Andrew,
I'll get you a link later. I just left the board after being totally amazed at the response I got to a post, and I can't bring myself to going back right now. It blew my mind.

I was responding to one of the quotes that one of the moderators was going to use in his book, which he felt was an example of how the early church was decisively Arminian. I tried to be as tactful and nonconfrontational as possible, but even that was to no avail.

Hopefully something I wrote might be useful to somebody over there some day.

[Edited on 5-1-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Can you say 'anachronism'?
> 
> Anyways, they were probably referring to Manichaenism, which Augustine believed before he became a Christian. According to scholars Mani taught dualism; an angry god vs. a loving god. Some believe that it is the source of which Augustine got his doctrine of original sin and double predestination. Calvin then simply picked up where he left off...
> 
> Look at this lovely and warm hearted endorsement of Calvinism:
> 
> http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm


Thanks for the link. It was nice to read some good, unbiased information about Calvin and his teachings once again.


----------



## blhowes

Ok, I ventured back to find the article on his website. Its called The Early Church and Calvinism.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Ok, I ventured back to find the article on his website. Its called The Early Church and Calvinism.



Hey Bob,

Your opponent is "self-appointed" and has no accountability to hold him to when he makes those sweeping, ignorant assumptions! The NT church upheld an order of checks/balances/authority-officers to test eachother's teachings. Paul even got Peter's approval when he came onboard.... 

Here is THE library for Early Christian writings:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

Herein lies the C Fathers as well as Calvin's....

That Arminian pastor is completely unreliable; acting like a Jehovah Witness picking/choosing whatever to support his claims.

An irony is that the Church Fathers (more than less) got sucked into Gnosticism (not Calvinism!). The assumption that they wouldn't be martyred unless they had the truth is bogus....remember those guys flying the 911 planes? They were sure they had the truth.

If you care to keep tussling --- try (if you can) to get him to commit to the One argument: what is the Gospel ? and follow that thread from Paul on...Sadly, our Church Fathers got off-base so much...it's a wonder we made it this far! Still, the Gospel thread is there, unbroken.

These self-agrandized; self-appointed pastors that plant their own churches and have no one to answer to - are not Biblical (not a true Church) and are especially self-righteous --- hard to reach. Ideal cult-material. (This pastor is VERY Gnostic!) Trying to refute his own personal encounter with God is impossible to do. Notice, he tries to manipulate dissenters by accusing them of not reading his book - thus invalidating their counters or questions. Sounds like he is focused on book-sales - not obeying Scripture.

(Take two asparin and call me in the morning....)

Robin


----------



## Poimen

Besides, John Gill (a Calvinist-Baptist) has many quotes from the early church fathers concerning sovereign grace:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5

Scroll down to Part 4. Enjoy.

[Edited on 4-30-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Robin

This brings to mind a good question....to all you (formally trained) theologians out there....

Which of the Fathers got it right? Which were off-base? (With respect to the Gospel/Justification.)

R.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Here is THE library for Early Christian writings:
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/
> 
> Herein lies the C Fathers as well as Calvin's....


Thanks. I'm sure that'll come in handy.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> If you care to keep tussling --- try (if you can) to get him to commit to the One argument: what is the Gospel ? and follow that thread from Paul on...Sadly, our Church Fathers got off-base so much...it's a wonder we made it this far! Still, the Gospel thread is there, unbroken.


Yeah, I had deleted the bookmark to that forum, thinking it was a real waste of time. I decided to go back and at least post a few more times and see what happens. Besides, I'm a little curious what other names he can come up with to call me.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Notice, he tries to manipulate dissenters by accusing them of not reading his book - thus invalidating their counters or questions.


Yes, I've noticed that. Its a good (though irritating) tactic. In my last post, I tried in a nice way to tell him that nothing I've seen yet has sparked my interest in reading his book. I hope he doesn't get mad at me.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Besides, John Gill (a Calvinist-Baptist) has many quotes from the early church fathers concerning sovereign grace:
> 
> http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5
> 
> Scroll down to Part 4. Enjoy.


Thanks. That looks like an excellent site.


----------



## LawrenceU

Bob,
You've obviously gotten under his skin. And someone needed to do that. His argumentation is nothing more than an extra-Biblical appeal to shore up a week theology.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> You've obviously gotten under his skin. And someone needed to do that. His argumentation is nothing more than an extra-Biblical appeal to shore up a week theology.


I really didn't mean to get under his skin. I was kind of hoping he'd see that he's reading his Arminian theology into at least that one early church document by Barnabas. If this is the level of objectivity he uses in his research, I didn't have the heart to tell him that I wouldn't waste my time reading the rest of it (or, should I say, I'd have to really force myself to read more).


----------



## LawrenceU

I surely didn't mean to imply that it was your motive! It just happened. Sometimes God will use that burr to move a man. You are doing a good job in that debate. 

I, too, thought that Barnabas was actually pointing toward reformed thinking. Mr. Lyndon is showing a distinct bias.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> I surely didn't mean to imply that it was your motive!


Nor did I mean to imply that that's what you were implying.


----------



## doulosChristou

That Pelagian board is swarming with ignorance.


----------



## LawrenceU

Well, as long as we have the implications of our implicatory actions in place our assumptions will be astute.

Greg, you are right on that!


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Well, as long as we have the implications of our implicatory actions in place our assumptions will be astute.


----------

