The connection between Gnosticism and the Reformers

[civic]

There are major similarities and yet subtle differences between Augustinianism and Gnosticism. While the Gnostics said that man’s nature was sinful and corrupt and that man didn’t have a free will because man was created by an inferior god, Augustine agreed with the Gnostics that man’s nature was sinful and corrupt and that man did not have a free will, but he said that God made it that way on account of Adam’s sin. While the Gnostics said that flesh was sinful and therefore Christ did not have a flesh, Augustine said that concupiscence in the flesh was sinful and that this sin was hereditary or transmitted from parent to child through the physical passions of intercourse, but that Jesus avoided this hereditary sin by being conceived without physical passion and being born of a virgin. Therefore, Augustine agreed with the Gnostics in principle, but he differed from them inexplanation. In this way, Augustinian theology was a modified Manichaeism or a semi-Gnosticism.

Consider the following facts:

• All of the Early Christians, before Augustine, believed in man’s free will and denied man’s natural inability.
• The Gnostics in the days of the Early Church believed in man’s natural inability and denied man’s free will.
• Augustine was a Gnostic for many years, in the Manichaeism sect, and converted to the Church out of Gnosticism.
• After joining the Church and being appointed a Bishop, Augustine began to deny the free will of man and to affirm the natural inability of man
• The Church, under Augustine’s influence, began to believe in the natural inability of man, which it never before held to, but which it formerly would refute.

What can we conclude by these facts except that when Augustine converted to Christianity out of Gnosticism, he brought with him some Gnostic doctrine? His views on human nature and free will were never held by the Early Church, but were held by the Gnostics. How can we possibly account for the fact that all of Christianity held to the freedom of the human will while only the Gnostic’s taught a corrupted and sinful nature, until Augustine joined the Christian Church out of Gnosticism? It seems abundantly clear that Augustine departed from the theology of the Early Church and remained in agreement with the Gnostics on the issue of human nature and free will. Church doctrine and theology has been infiltrated and polluted with Gnostic heresies. The Church went wrong at the time of Augustine. Christian theology violently crashed like a train, falling off the tracks, and has continued to charge and move forward on the wrong path and in the wrong direction ever since.

The greatest contributors to modern Christian theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Augustine was influenced by Manichaean thought and Luther and Calvin were influenced by Augustinian thought. Therefore, it is no surprise that Augustine denied free will as the Manichaeans did, and Luther and Calvin denied free will as Augustine did. The Manichaeans influenced Augustine and Augustine in turn influenced Luther and Calvin.

There is no dispute over the fact that Luther and Calvin were influenced by Augustine. Luther was even an Augustinian monk. William Carlos Martyn said about Luther, “The study of the Bible and of Augustine theology… lead him to the Redeemer.”[59] In his historical account of Luther, Johann Heinrich Kurtz said, “Luther zealously studied the Bible, along with the writings of Augustine…”[60] Principal Tullock said that Luther “nourished himself upon Scripture and St. Augustine…”[61] Robert Dale Owen said, “Calvin’s ‘Institutes’ are based on Augustine’s ‘City of God’”[62] Thomas H. Dyer said in his biography of John Calvin, “The doctrine of predestination, which is generally regarded as that of which principally characterizes Calvin, is in fact that of St. Augustin…”[63] Oliver Joseph Thatcher explains why, “In theology he [Calvin] was a close follower of St. Augustine. His influence was to revivify the ideas of St. Augustine and, joining them to the main ideas of the Reformation, embody them in the Church he organized.”[64] The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “Luther… Zwingli and Calvin, with minor divergences, agree in reverting to St. Augustine on the main issuesand in the supposed interests of evangelical piety…”[65] Luther referred to Augustine thirteen times in his book “The Bondage of the Will”[66], and twenty four times in the “Works of Martin Luther.”[67] John Calvin referred to Augustine two hundred and sixty five times in his “Institutes on Christian Religion.”[68]

Since Luther and Calvin were both students of Augustine and learned much of their theology from him, it is not surprising to find the remains of the Gnostic view of human nature in their theological writings. Martin Luther said, “…man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good… he sins and wills evil necessarily…”[69] He said, “Sin in his nature and of himself he can do nothing but sin.”[70] John Calvin said that man does not have a “free will” in the sense that “he has a free choice of good and evil,”[71] but denied this all together. Calvin paraphrases Augustine saying, “…nature began to want liberty the moment the will was vanquished by the revolt into which it fell… by making a bad use of free will, lost both himself and his will… free will having been made a captive, can do nothing in the way of righteousness… man at his creation received a great degree of free will, but lost it by sinning.”[72] The Christian Spectator said, “Augustine, and Calvin, and all of the reformers, taught the bondage, or moral impotence of the will.”[73] While the Early Church wrote about “the freedom of the will,” Martin Luther wrote an entire book called “The Bondage of the Will.” This shows a clear departure from the views of early Christianity.

 

[civic]

continued :

Luther defended his position against free will by saying, “Augustine… is wholly on my side…”[74] Calvin, like Luther, appealed to Augustine to support and defend his position. Calvin said, “Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest” Calvin be charged with “being opposed to all antiquity…”[75] Calvin tried to dismiss the charge of being opposed to the Early Church by saying, “Augustine hesitated not to call the will a slave…”[76] Charles Partee said “In his teaching on total depravity and bondage of the will Calvin is essentially following Augustine and Luther and not creating a so-called Calvinistic doctrine.”[77]

While Calvin tried to say that he was not “opposed to all antiquity” when it came to free will, what he meant was that he was not opposed to Augustine. Augustine was the only exception. He was opposed to all of the Early Church fathers before Augustine on this topic. John Calvin said, “…all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings…”[78] Calvin believed that men like Clement of Rome and Ignatius, who personally knew the Apostles, did not understand the Epistles of the Apostles; while Augustine, who did not know the Apostles, apparently did understand them. Calvin admitted, “It may, perhaps, seem that I have greatly prejudiced my own view by confessing that all of the ecclesiastical writers, with the exception of Augustine, have spoken too ambiguously or inconsistently on this subject, that no certainty is attainable from their writings.”[79]

The reason that John Calvin rejected all ancient theologians and dismissed all of their writings on this matter, except for Augustine, is because all ancient theologians affirmed the freedom of the will in their writings, except for Augustine. Gregory Boyd said, “This in part explains why Calvin cannot cite ante-Nicene fathers against his libertarian opponents…. Hence, when Calvin debates Pighuis on the freedom of the will, he cites Augustine abundantly, but no early church fathers are cited.”[80] That is why George Pretyman said, “…the peculiar tenets of Calvinism are in direct opposition to the Doctrines maintained in the primitive Church of Christ…” This we have clearly seen, but he also said, “…there is a great similarity between the Calvinistic system and the earliest [Gnostic] heresies…”[81]

The Reformers sought to return the Church to early Christianity, but actually brought it back to early heresies, because it stopped short at Augustine. The Reformers did not go far back enough. Rather than returning the Church to early Christianity, the Reformation resurrected Augustinian and Gnostic doctrines. The Methodist Quarterly Review said, “At the Reformation Augustinianism received an emphatic re-enforcement among the Protestant Churches.”[82] The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “…it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine… the Reformation came, seeing that it was, on its theological side, a revival of Augustinianism…”[83] The Reformation was to a great extent a resurrection or revival of Augustinian theology and a further departure and falling away from Early Christianity.

Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God.

This view has been held in both Catholic and Protestant Churches, taught by both Arminian and Calvinist theologians. Augustine taught many false doctrines such as the sinless life of Mary, praying to the dead, persecuting heretics, infant damnation, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Yet it is his false teaching in regards to human nature and free will that has spread beyond the Catholic Church into the Protestant realm.

Consider these facts that have been shown:

• Augustine’s mind was highly influenced by the teachings of Manichaeism on the topic of human nature and free will; and in his views on the subject, he clearly departed from the views of the Early Church.
• The minds of Martin Luther and John Calvin were highly influenced by the teachings of Augustine on the topic of human nature and free will and admitted to departing from the views of the Early Church.
• The greatest contributors to modern theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Isn’t it abundantly clear that Gnostic doctrine has infected the Church? The Gnostic doctrine of the bondage of the will, or the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God, has crept into the Church through a “Trojan horse” and has been masquerading as Christianity ever since. It has survived the centuries through Augustinian, Lutheran, and Calvinistic theology. These groups have preserved and promoted the doctrine of natural inability. This belief has spread like a dangerous plague, finding acceptance in many denominations and churches, but what it is not what orthodox Christianity believed.’https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/

hope this helps !!!

 

[PeanutGallery]

... Augustine said that concupiscence in the flesh was sinful and that this sin was hereditary or transmitted from parent to child through the physical passions of intercourse, but that Jesus avoided this hereditary sin by being conceived without physical passion and being born of a virgin. ..
...

Augustine: Gnostic Heretic and Corruptor of The Church

‘Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his wor…

crosstheology.wordpress.com

God says otherwise; are some willingly ignorant?

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

 

[makesends]

continued :

Luther defended his position against free will by saying, “Augustine… is wholly on my side…”[74] Calvin, like Luther, appealed to Augustine to support and defend his position. Calvin said, “Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest” Calvin be charged with “being opposed to all antiquity…”[75] Calvin tried to dismiss the charge of being opposed to the Early Church by saying, “Augustine hesitated not to call the will a slave…”[76] Charles Partee said “In his teaching on total depravity and bondage of the will Calvin is essentially following Augustine and Luther and not creating a so-called Calvinistic doctrine.”[77]

While Calvin tried to say that he was not “opposed to all antiquity” when it came to free will, what he meant was that he was not opposed to Augustine. Augustine was the only exception. He was opposed to all of the Early Church fathers before Augustine on this topic. John Calvin said, “…all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings…”[78] Calvin believed that men like Clement of Rome and Ignatius, who personally knew the Apostles, did not understand the Epistles of the Apostles; while Augustine, who did not know the Apostles, apparently did understand them. Calvin admitted, “It may, perhaps, seem that I have greatly prejudiced my own view by confessing that all of the ecclesiastical writers, with the exception of Augustine, have spoken too ambiguously or inconsistently on this subject, that no certainty is attainable from their writings.”[79]

The reason that John Calvin rejected all ancient theologians and dismissed all of their writings on this matter, except for Augustine, is because all ancient theologians affirmed the freedom of the will in their writings, except for Augustine. Gregory Boyd said, “This in part explains why Calvin cannot cite ante-Nicene fathers against his libertarian opponents…. Hence, when Calvin debates Pighuis on the freedom of the will, he cites Augustine abundantly, but no early church fathers are cited.”[80] That is why George Pretyman said, “…the peculiar tenets of Calvinism are in direct opposition to the Doctrines maintained in the primitive Church of Christ…” This we have clearly seen, but he also said, “…there is a great similarity between the Calvinistic system and the earliest [Gnostic] heresies…”[81]

The Reformers sought to return the Church to early Christianity, but actually brought it back to early heresies, because it stopped short at Augustine. The Reformers did not go far back enough. Rather than returning the Church to early Christianity, the Reformation resurrected Augustinian and Gnostic doctrines. The Methodist Quarterly Review said, “At the Reformation Augustinianism received an emphatic re-enforcement among the Protestant Churches.”[82] The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “…it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine… the Reformation came, seeing that it was, on its theological side, a revival of Augustinianism…”[83] The Reformation was to a great extent a resurrection or revival of Augustinian theology and a further departure and falling away from Early Christianity.

Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God.

This view has been held in both Catholic and Protestant Churches, taught by both Arminian and Calvinist theologians. Augustine taught many false doctrines such as the sinless life of Mary, praying to the dead, persecuting heretics, infant damnation, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Yet it is his false teaching in regards to human nature and free will that has spread beyond the Catholic Church into the Protestant realm.

Consider these facts that have been shown:

• Augustine’s mind was highly influenced by the teachings of Manichaeism on the topic of human nature and free will; and in his views on the subject, he clearly departed from the views of the Early Church.
• The minds of Martin Luther and John Calvin were highly influenced by the teachings of Augustine on the topic of human nature and free will and admitted to departing from the views of the Early Church.
• The greatest contributors to modern theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Isn’t it abundantly clear that Gnostic doctrine has infected the Church? The Gnostic doctrine of the bondage of the will, or the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God, has crept into the Church through a “Trojan horse” and has been masquerading as Christianity ever since. It has survived the centuries through Augustinian, Lutheran, and Calvinistic theology. These groups have preserved and promoted the doctrine of natural inability. This belief has spread like a dangerous plague, finding acceptance in many denominations and churches, but what it is not what orthodox Christianity believed.’https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/

hope this helps !!!

If those who oppose Reformed Theology / Calvinism refer to the ECF as authorities for their doctrine, they have a problem. Not that the Reformed/Calvinists don't consider Augustine for their authority, but in my experience, the Scriptures are their authority. I personally didn't know anything about Augustine, nor, for that matter, was I familiar with Reformed/Calvinism, when I came to the conclusions I have from Scripture, not to mention life's experiences and prayer. It was only later that I came to find out that what I had known only by caricature, essentially agreed with me.

Of course, I'm not saying that I wasn't influenced by them, nonetheless, but so are you, and all Arminians.

 

[Dizerner]

This article's a mess.

When you get statements like "All of the Early Christians" and not one effort to fairly analyze for and against statements, you have nothing but a biased hit piece.

Anyone can just make bald assertions.

 

[WCF]

Who is arguing that many reformers were not influenced by Augustine? That is true.

 

[Paul]

God says otherwise; are some willingly ignorant?

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

That would make St. Augustine one of the willingly ignorant.

 

[Paul]

Who is arguing that many reformers were not influenced by Augustine? That is true.

I know Martin Luther was heavily influenced like John Calvin

 

[makesends]

That would make St. Augustine one of the willingly ignorant.

Are any of us above that description?

 

[civic]

Are any of us above that description?

Do you think the OP is historically accurate connecting calvin to augustine ? Thanks !

 

[civic]

If those who oppose Reformed Theology / Calvinism refer to the ECF as authorities for their doctrine, they have a problem. Not that the Reformed/Calvinists don't consider Augustine for their authority, but in my experience, the Scriptures are their authority. I personally didn't know anything about Augustine, nor, for that matter, was I familiar with Reformed/Calvinism, when I came to the conclusions I have from Scripture, not to mention life's experiences and prayer. It was only later that I came to find out that what I had known only by caricature, essentially agreed with me.

Of course, I'm not saying that I wasn't influenced by them, nonetheless, but so are you, and all Arminians.

Actually I was most influenced by men such as MacArthur and RC Sproul for the past several decades and my first few years as a young believer in the Dutch Reformed Church under the discipleship of the senior pastor. I was also influenced by Arminius for many years. He would actually be considered a calvinist by modern day standards.

 

[makesends]

Actually I was most influenced by men such as MacArthur and RC Sproul for the past several decades and my first few years as a young believer in the Dutch Reformed Church under the discipleship of the senior pastor. I was also influenced by Arminius for many years. He would actually be considered a calvinist by modern day standards.

The OP seems word-for-word something I've read before, on another site. I don't find it logically convincing; I wouldn't be surprised if similar things could be said relating any one theology to heresy.

My simplest answer to it is that I'm a Calvinist or Reformed by reputation more than by being taught it. What they believe runs very close to what I believe. I didn't learn it from them, but from Scripture, prayer, experience and logic. I don't know Augustine nor Calvin nor Luther. They are not my source for what I believe. What I believe makes sense to me, and is the only answer in the end to what my soul agonized over so long.

 

[civic]

The OP seems word-for-word something I've read before, on another site. I don't find it logically convincing; I wouldn't be surprised if similar things could be said relating any one theology to heresy.

My simplest answer to it is that I'm a Calvinist or Reformed by reputation more than by being taught it. What they believe runs very close to what I believe. I didn't learn it from them, but from Scripture, prayer, experience and logic. I don't know Augustine nor Calvin nor Luther. They are not my source for what I believe. What I believe makes sense to me, and is the only answer in the end to what my soul agonized over so long.

I had this on our old forum.

 

[Paul]

Are any of us above that description?

No to my knowledge

 

[atpollard]

 

[makesends]

Do you think the OP is historically accurate connecting calvin to augustine ? Thanks !

That has been my impression, that he was influenced by him. I haven't studied the matter, though. I don't know either of their works very well.

 

[Rowan]

One strategy commonly used by Calvinist is to appeal to secondary causes. This is a philosophical concept derived from Aristotle’s philosophy; Thomas Aquinas uses it to explain how God assures that everything happens but is not guilty of sin and evil. Calvin used this concept to put distance between God’s sovereign power working out all things according to his purpose and the creature’s evil decisions and actions.

to me it's just plain old double speak. So, put in other words, God as the primary cause of everything that happens uses secondary causes to render certain what he wants to happen according to his foreordained plan.

Even the fall of Adam is planned and rendered certain by God, but God is not responsible for the sin of Adam because secondary or proximate causes such as Satan and Adam’s choice to sin actually bring it about.

What is this but an appeal to direct and indirect causation? Ultimately, all events including the fall of Adam must be traced back to God, who renders them certain.

 

[atpollard]

to me it's just plain old double speak. So, put in other words, God as the primary cause of everything that happens uses secondary causes to render certain what he wants to happen according to his foreordained plan.

Did God kill Job's sons?

God was the PRIMARY CAUSE, but God acted through Satan as the SECONDARY CAUSE. Thus in one sense, God was responsible (God allowed it) and in another sense Satan and not God actually killed Job's sons.


Who killed Jesus - God or Men?

It is not "double speak", it is biblical reality illustrated in scripture and vital to understanding what God does and how God does it.
Read Romans 1:18-32 and see what part God played in their increasing sin and what part they played.

 

[Rowan]

Did God kill Job's sons?

God was the PRIMARY CAUSE, but God acted through Satan as the SECONDARY CAUSE. Thus in one sense, God was responsible (God allowed it) and in another sense Satan and not God actually killed Job's sons.


Who killed Jesus - God or Men?

It is not "double speak", it is biblical reality illustrated in scripture and vital to understanding what God does and how God does it.
Read Romans 1:18-32 and see what part God played in their increasing sin and what part they played.

I know what the Bible says. I'm pointing out the spin Calvinism puts on it.

 

[atpollard]

Ultimately, all events including the fall of Adam must be traced back to God, who renders them certain.

That could apply to Hypercalvinism, too ... where God is so sovereign that He actively causes people to sin and be damned because he created then for that purpose and evangelism is pointless as God will save those that God will save making human efforts either wasted or superfluous. Hypercalvinism (like you) denies secondary causes - God does EVERYTHING.