Calvinism Embodies the Gnosis of Gnosticism

Published by Papa Giorgio

I cam across a Dinesh D’Souza “TwiX” (X, formerly Twitter) that I know the answer to, well, one of the answers.

Here is his X

I respond to it:

More on this:

C. Gnosticism

The essential element in order to be categorized as a ‘Gnostic’ is the belief that a rival evil god created the evil cosmos composed of physical matter.[26] Gnostics were cosmic dualists, meaning that everything composed of physical matter was evil and everything non-physical (spiritual) was good. Humans are born evil because they possess a physical body. Therefore humans are damned at birth. Valentinus, a Gnostic, taught God offered the message of salvation to every human equally; however, only the predetermined elect were empowered by god to accept that invitation.[27] The Gnostic god unilaterally restored right reason to the helplessly corrupted human will through a gift to the mind (Corp. Herm.4.4; 6,68.36; 6,69.31–32; DH.5.3). When divine grace implanted that spiritual seed then the elects’ salvation was compelled by their new “free will” by their own “free choice.” The scholar Gilles Quispel articulated this Gnostic Valentinian separation of the elect (“predestined not to fall into foolishness”) from the damned evil nature of the majority of humanity (Treat. Res.46).[28] “All works are predestined, discipline and abstinence effect nothing, and the elect are saved by knowing that they are saved.”[29]

In contrast, the lλικοi (persons of earthly matter) were hopelessly damned from birth.[30] The Gnostic portrayal of Pharaoh as a ruined nature incapable of salvation precipitated Origen’s famous rebuttal (Princ.3.1.8) in defending free choice against Gnostic Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (DUPIED). Several Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi Library describe God’s command to be saved or God’s sole prerogative to save only some. This is a DUPIED requirement.

It is God’s business to save whom he wants; it is the business of the god-loving man to beseech God to save everyone. (Sentences of Sextus [Pythagoreanl, 373–374)

When the Gnostic god gave (forced) what he commanded, then he could command whatever he willed (humans would obey without fail).

Present a command to us to see Thee, so that we may be saved. Knowledge of Thee, it is the salvation of us all! Present a command! When Thou dost command, we have been saved. (The Three Steles of Seth, 125; cf. The Teaching of Silvanus, 114–115).[31]

“Only because the supreme God, in His infinite mercifulness and inscrutable will, at a certain moment decided to turn Himself towards the potential Gnostic, can he effectively convert himself.”[32] The Gnostic god must regenerate a person before that person is able to believe. Also in Gnosticism both ‘free will’ and ‘forced grace’ are taught simultaneously. Unfortunately, only the elect were given a healed ‘free will’ to accept this salvation offered to “everyone” (but offered unequally, cf. Hippolytus, Haer.5.14.1).

Jewish, Christian, and pagan philosophers alike unanimously denounced Gnostic Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (DUPIED) because it robbed humans of free choice, self-determination, and the universal opportunity for salvation.[33] Irenaeus of Lyons (ca.180) argued against Gnostic determinism, comparing their view to Stoic determinism (Adv. haer.1.6.2; 2.29.1–31; 2.14.4).[34] Clement of Alexandria refuted the Gnostic Basilides’ followers who claimed faith itself was a gift of God, with some persons being incapable of belief because they did not receive that ‘natural’ gift of faith (Strom.2.3–4). Clement claimed Gnostics used scripture (such as Romans 11) to prove their determinism (Exc. Theod. 56.3–27).[35] The premier church historian, Chadwick, summarized the early Christian response to Gnosticism:

For in rejecting the Gnostic way the Christians thereby rejected as inauthentic adulteration and corruption any theology of pure revelation teaching salvation by an arbitrary predestination of the elect and the total depravity of the lost, and possessing no criteria of rational judgment.[36]

Ken Wilson, The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism (Regula Fidei Press, 2019), 11–14.

FOOTNOTES

  1. Mark Edwards, Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 1; found in Porphyry’s title to Enn. 2.9.
  2. Albrecht Dihle, The Theory of Will in Classical Antiquity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982), 151–154; Ev. Ver. 11, 30–31; Corp. Herm. 1.26. The elect were πνευματικοί (spiritual ones) possessing Light particles required for salvation from ignorance.
  3. Gilles Quispel, “The Original Doctrine of Valentine,” Vigiliae Christianae 1 (1947): 43–73.
  4. Mark Edwards, Culture and Philosophy in the Age of Plotinus (London: Duckworth, 2006), 152.
  5. Karen King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003), 205; but see Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion, 13–15.
  6. Note the similarity between this phrase from the Gnostic The Three Steles of Seth and Augustine’s famous line in his Confessions 10.31, to which Pelagius reacted as being a non-Christian concept: “Oh Lord, command what you will and give what you command.”
  7. Giovanni Filoramo, “The Transformation of the Inner Self in Gnostic and Hermetic Texts,” in Jan Assmann and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 139.
  8. Dihle (1982), 152.
  9. Jens Holzhausen, “Valentinus and Valentinians,” in Wouter Hanegraaff, ed., Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1150–1154; cf. Origen’s Comm. Ev. Jo., fr. 46 (John 8:44a).
  10. Jeffrey Bingham, “Irenaeus Reads Romans 8: Resurrection and Renovation,” in Kathy Gaca and Laurence Welborn, eds., Early Patristic Readings of Romans in Romans Through History and Culture Series (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 124.
  11. Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 9.

This next excerpt [in full] comes by way of Apologetics Vaughn and shows the “intriguing similarities between the two”, that is, Calvinism and Gnosticism:

Gnosticism and Calvinism are two distinct theological systems with different origins and core tenets. However, despite their differences, there are some intriguing similarities between the two that warrant exploration. These similarities primarily revolve around the concepts of election, dualism, knowledge, and limited atonement.

Election and Predestination:

Both Gnosticism and Calvinism emphasize the concept of election, where a select group is chosen for salvation. In Gnosticism, this election is based on possessing special knowledge (gnosis) or belonging to a spiritual elite. Gnostics believe that only those with this esoteric knowledge can transcend the material world and achieve salvation. Similarly, Calvinism upholds the doctrine of predestination, where God has sovereignly chosen a select few for salvation before the foundation of the world. While the basis for election differs between the two systems (knowledge vs. divine decree), the concept of a predetermined group destined for salvation is a common thread.

Dualism:

Gnosticism is inherently dualistic, positing a stark separation between the material world (seen as evil or flawed) and the spiritual realm (seen as pure and good). This dualistic worldview leads Gnostics to view the material world with contempt and to seek escape from its clutches through spiritual enlightenment. While Calvinism does not embrace the same level of dualism as Gnosticism, it does emphasize the depravity of human nature and the fallenness of the world, contrasting it with the holiness and sovereignty of God. This emphasis on the separation between the divine and the human, and the inherent sinfulness of humanity, can be seen as a point of convergence with Gnostic thought.

Knowledge:

Gnosticism places a high value on esoteric knowledge (gnosis) as the key to salvation. This knowledge is not readily available to everyone but is reserved for a select few who are deemed worthy. Similarly, while Calvinism does not rely on secret knowledge, it does emphasize the importance of understanding and accepting the doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God. This emphasis on theological knowledge as a crucial component of faith can be seen as a parallel with Gnostic thought, where knowledge plays a central role in achieving salvation.

Limited Atonement:

Calvinism teaches the doctrine of limited atonement, which posits that Christ’s death on the cross was only intended for the elect. This exclusivity resonates with the Gnostic notion that salvation is only accessible to a select few who possess the necessary spiritual knowledge or insight. Both systems, in their own way, limit the scope of salvation to a chosen group, whether that group is defined by knowledge or divine decree.

Additional Similarities:

Beyond these core similarities, there are other potential points of convergence between Gnosticism and Calvinism. Both systems can be interpreted as promoting a hierarchical view of salvation, where some individuals are seen as more spiritually advanced or favored than others. Both systems also place a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God (or a higher power) in determining the fate of individuals.

It is important to note that these similarities should not be overstated. Gnosticism and Calvinism are distinct theological systems with significant differences in their understanding of God, creation, and salvation. However, exploring the similarities between these two systems can shed light on the complex and multifaceted nature of religious beliefs and practices.