How the Reformers were the Custodians of Gnostic Heresy

[PatristicArcana]

During the years that I've spent studying early Christianity, I've become more and more aware of parallels between ancient Gnostic teachings and the theology of the Reformers. And no, I'm not referring to the inherent docetism of Gnosticism, i.e., the denial that Christ came in the flesh (cf. 1 John 4:3 & 2 John 1:7). Nor am I referring to their beliefs concerning the Demiurge as a separate and inferior god to the God of the New Testament. There are, nevertheless, yet a good many beliefs held in common between the two. Let us review some of the Gnostic teachings as identified by the early orthodox Christians, and I shall assume that my readers are already familiar with Protestant Reformationism.

One of Martin Luther's most famous teachings was that of sola fide, and the underlying reason behind the insistence that works play no role in our salvation was the doctrine of total depravity (the "T" in John Calvin's notorious TULIP acronym)—mankind literally cannot choose to do good. The following is representative of many quotations that identify these beliefs as characteristic of early Gnosticism:

"For this reason it is that they [the Gnostics] neither regard works [Latin operationes: the doing of (good) works] as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure."
(Tertullian, ca. 200, Against the Valentinians 30, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:517)

It was furthermore the view of the Reformers that the saved cannot possibly lose their salvation. For example, the "P" in Calvin's TULIP stands for "perseverance of the saints," and from this is eternal security understood, i.e., the motto of 'once saved, always saved' that is so popular today. Again, Tertullian on the Gnostics:

"But some [the Gnostics] think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery. . . . For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? is not this gift taken away from many? These, no doubt, are they who . . . after approaching to the faith of repentance, set up on the sands a house doomed to ruin."
(Tertullian, ca. 203, On Repentance 6, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:661)

Still as prevalent among Protestants today as it was among the Reformers is the denial of the necessity of baptism. In both cases, salvation occurs on a purely spiritual level without the need of any physical ordinance. Here this is evidenced by another writer:

"And when we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. . . .
"For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins"
(Irenaeus, ca. 180, Against Heresies 1:21:1-2, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:346)

Likewise were their beliefs concerning the Communion:

"They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . . Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death"
(Ignatius, ca. 105, Smyrneans 7, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:89)

And again:

"Mindful of this declaration as of a conclusive prescript, we nevertheless proceed to treat the question [put forth by the Gnostics], 'How foolish and impossible it is to be formed anew by water. In what respect, pray, has this material substance merited an office of so high dignity?' . . . [Tertullian’s
Answer:] Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life."
(Tertullian, ca. 198, On Baptism 3, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:670)

And finally, a cornerstone of the Reformation, there is the belief in absolute and arbitrary predestination:

"And certain of those who hold different opinions [i.e., the Gnostics] misuse these passages, themselves also almost destroying free-will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation, and others saved which it is impossible can be lost . . . .
"Now, our opponent [the Gnostics] will say, . . . it is not within the power of such to be saved; and if so, we are not possessed of free-will as regards salvation and destruction."
(Origen, ca. 225, On First Principles 3:1:8,16, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:308,317)

Naturally, after having made these discoveries, I came to wonder how these theological beliefs found their way from the Gnostics all the way to the Reformers. It didn't take long to figure out; it is common knowledge that Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Augustine had advocated these beliefs himself as a direct result to having once been a Gnostic. I shall let a Reformed scholar summarize the history here:

"The anti-Manichaean works date mostly from his earlier life, and in time and matter follow immediately upon his philosophical writings. In them he afterwards found most to retract, because he advocated the freedom of the will against the Manichaean fatalism. . . . These works treat of the origin of evil; of free will; of the harmony of the Old and New Testaments, and of revelation and nature; of creation out of nothing, in opposition to dualism and hylozoism; of the supremacy of faith over knowledge; of the, authority of the Scriptures and the church; of the true and the false asceticism, and other disputed points; and they are the chief source of our knowledge of the Manichaean Gnosticism and of the arguments against it. Having himself belonged for nine years to this sect, Augustine was the better fitted for the task of refuting it, as Paul was peculiarly prepared for the confutation of the Pharisaic Judaism.”
(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 3:1012-1013)

And while this was characteristic of Augustine's earlier life, we find that in his later and far more influential works, he had relapsed back to the views he had held as a Gnostic:

"The Augustinian system was unknown in the ante-Nicene age, and was never accepted in the in the Eastern Church. This is a strong argument against it. Augustine himself developed it only during the Pelagian controversy; while in his earlier writing he taught freedom of the human will against the fatalism of the Manicheans."
(Ibid., 3:542)

[One Bad Pig]

Interesting. I may read Schaff's History after all.

[Jolly Rogers]

Interesting. I may read Schaff's History after all.

Its available here
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

[One Bad Pig]

Thanks. CCEL's awesome.

[Jolly Rogers]

Here is another link on similar issues
http://josephpatterson.wordpress.com...tant-gnostics/

[Stefcui]

During the years that I've spent studying early Christianity, I've become more and more aware of parallels between ancient Gnostic teachings and the theology of the Reformers.

I also have found, "during the years that I've spent studying early Christianity", that all Christian doctrines and teachings have been muddied by gnostics and heretics to some degree. After the 4th century Christianity became a different animal. It was a time you could buy a church and a bishopric; you could also inherit one or be gifted one from an emperor. Once money and freedom became the expectation of the church... we changed. All churches since that time have become children of a kind of gnostic-christian hybrid. Our interpretations have been influenced by gnostics and heretics, or worse, the ungodly catholic (universal) christendom. A dark spirit came over "orthodox" christians when they started to stone each other and burn each other at the stake. Remember John Wycliffe and the Lollards, John Hus, Tyndale etc. Then Calvin started to burn Catholics at the stake. A very dark spirit came over the churches, and we still suffer from blindness from our forefathers sins.

[lilpixieofterror]

I also have found, "during the years that I've spent studying early Christianity", that all Christian doctrines and teachings have been muddied by gnostics and heretics to some degree. After the 4th century Christianity became a different animal. It was a time you could buy a church and a bishopric; you could also inherit one or be gifted one from an emperor. Once money and freedom became the expectation of the church... we changed. All churches since that time have become children of a kind of gnostic-christian hybrid. Our interpretations have been influenced by gnostics and heretics, or worse, the ungodly catholic (universal) christendom. A dark spirit came over "orthodox" christians when they started to stone each other and burn each other at the stake. Remember John Wycliffe and the Lollards, John Hus, Tyndale etc. Then Calvin started to burn Catholics at the stake. A very dark spirit came over the churches, and we still suffer from blindness from our forefathers sins.

Wow... so much wrong with this post, I don't know where to start. How about we start here, why are church doctrines from the pre 4th century church the same as they are in the post 4th century church?

[Stefcui]

Wow... so much wrong with this post, I don't know where to start. How about we start here, why are church doctrines from the pre 4th century church the same as they are in the post 4th century church?

Wow? Please let me know where celibacy for priests, the papacy, infant baptism, iconography, Mary worship and transubstantiation are church doctrines before the 4th century.

I am only presenting information... if I am wrong I would like to be corrected in a spirit of mildness and charity.

Thanks

[Stefcui]

The great bulk of scribal alterations took place within the 4th century. Many of the writings of the 3rd century fathers were altered to give the idea of compliance with 4th century doctrines. This was a common practice. Origen was edited to make him appear to contend against Arius. Cyprian, Tertullian, Firmilian, Dionysius and Gregory Thaumaturgus… they were all edited to make them appear in compliance with 4th century innovations. This information is readily available with a little research. The pseudo books, for instance, written by Apollinaris of Laodicea, are available to compare with original autographs. Then also the document of Rufinus on The Adulteration of Books lists many authors whose books were altered. Then you have the confessions of people like Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 2) who tells of the terrible conditions that then existed; then also you have the historical accounts of Theodotus, Philostorgius, Rufinus, Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers and Socrates Scholasticus.

Jerome, who was the major bible translator of the 4th century, did not even believe that the bible was inspired. He believed that Paul, James and Peter were all liars not to be trusted (see Jerome's letters to Augustine). Many parts of the Vulgate were altered to comply with Masoretic and Aquillian manuscripts.

Then also you had the extraordinary wealth that the church had bestowed on her by the emperors. The fine clothing; the chariots; the imperial lodging; the statues of Constantine and other religious icons collected by Constantine’s mother; the public offices; the bribes; the collection and distribution of taxes… all of these things were unique to the 4th century church. All of these things have also stayed within the several different developments of the church - whether they were Orthodoxy; Anglicanism; Protestants; Millennialism; Pentecostals… the churches are now different denominations; but they are simple recycled versions of the 4th century church. We have not as yet gotten back to the 1st century organic church.

Some things were discarded amongst Protestants, such as Mary worship, the papacy, etc., but many other things remain untouched, such as our relationship with Mammon and the State, our abandonment of the LXX and our Masoretic reliance; our institutional churches run by a corporate office and body of doctrines very similar to the papacy. Church autonomy and organic unity has not been rediscovered; our funding and dependence on the state has not been abandoned; our enterprising capitalism has not been abandoned. Today we are not even allowed to read the bible or sing a worship song without paying or acknowledging copyright. There is a copyright restriction on how much of the bible can be read in church. All churches operate as businesses, and they are taxed like businesses. Every church today is required to have a business name and business number or it cannot operate. This is not the same church that Jesus set up. We believe in the same God, and Jesus is still the sacrifice for our sins, but we function completely differently, and we have done so ever since the 4th century.

This knowledge and awareness is difficult to comprehend. As we way up the implications it shakes us to the core. It is far easier to keep the halter over our eyes. I am not challenging our faith in Christ or the church; I am acknowledging our corporate sin and need of universal repentance. I believe we will all attain to the fullness of the faith and unity before the arrival of the Great Day of the Lord. I have, to a degree, begun the process. Others also have begun. I am testifying to that awareness as it has been unfolded to me. I do not insist that anyone else agree with me. And I am certainly not challenging the authenticity of anyone’s faith – whichever denomination one belongs to.

[Jedidiah]

Wow? Please let me know where celibacy for priests, the papacy, infant baptism, iconography, Mary worship and transubstantiation are church doctrines before the 4th century.

I am confused here. You originally pointed to the reformers as the custodians of heresy. The matters you bring up here are not basically products of the reformation. Or did you get sidetracked.

I am only presenting information... if I am wrong I would like to be corrected in a spirit of mildness and charity.

The fact of gnostic heresy does not necessarily taint any beliefs. The gnosticism did hold onto some accurate doctrines. Doctrine is only heretical if it is not supported by scripture, not because some heresy held similar beliefs.

[One Bad Pig]

Wow? Please let me know where celibacy for priests, the papacy, infant baptism, iconography, Mary worship and transubstantiation are church doctrines before the 4th century.

None of these are gnostic; only celibacy for priests can be construed so, and the apologia for that has never been gnostic. I'm not going to defend priestly celibacy or the papacy (or the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation), since I don't hold those doctrines. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist can be argued directly from scripture. Infant baptism has been around since at least the time of Tertullian (late 2nd century). Iconography and the veneration (not worship) of Mary have been around since at least the third century.

I am only presenting information... if I am wrong I would like to be corrected in a spirit of mildness and charity.

Thanks

Balderdash. After all the vile vomit you're spewing, you want mildness and charity?

In further proof of your hypocrisy, you're condemning post-4th century orthodox Christianity as tainted by gnosticism while simultaneously claiming to hold orthodox beliefs.

[Stefcui]

I am confused here. You originally pointed to the reformers as the custodians of heresy. The matters you bring up here are not basically products of the reformation. Or did you get sidetracked.

Hi Jedidiah, it was PatristicArcana in the OP who made the comments about the reformers and gnostics; I extended the idea to all institutional churches since the 4th century. The non-biblical doctrines that were adopted at that time are evidence that the church had made a detour from the original doctrines that were taught by the apostles. All reformers recognize this; that is why they are called Protestants. If the Catholic church in the 4th century did not make the said doctrinal detours, then we should all be still Catholics till this day. Everyone who is not a Catholic believes that the Catholics went astray. How and when the Catholics went astray is debated. I believe the falling away took place as early as Nicaea; whereas most other Protestants believe that the falling away was post-Chalcedon (451). There is not a great deal of difference between what I have said and what most reformers have taught.

Note: I do not question the doctrine of the Trinity; however, the Nicene doctrine was modified at Constantinople, and several other church councils went so far as to condemn the homoosian and homoiosian terms given at Nicaea. The term homoosian was previously condemned in approx 270 as being a modalism term. The trinity doctrine is still being debated today as to the economic and ontological nature, and whether or not the Son was always the Son, or whether or not He was previously the WORD and not the Son. Theologians are still at odds on these points.

[Stefcui]

None of these are gnostic...

I said that "all Christian doctrines and teachings have been muddied by gnostics and heretics to some degree"; not just by gnostics, but by heresy also. These doctrines of "celibacy for priests, the papacy, infant baptism, iconography, Mary worship and transubstantiation" have been long considered by most Protestant churches as introduced heresies. These teachings were introduced in the 4th century as doctrines of the universal (Catholic) church. Tertullian did not teach on infant baptism as far as I know, it was Cyprian, and the genuineness of this teaching of Cyprian has been questioned and debated. It was unique to Carthage at any rate - it was not universal until the 4th century.

[Skyller]

The history is really looking much interesting, going to read all about in detail by the link provided by you people. I am really very fond of knowing the past facts. Thanks

[lilpixieofterror]

Wow? Please let me know where celibacy for priests, the papacy, infant baptism, iconography, Mary worship and transubstantiation are church doctrines before the 4th century.

And how does any of that stuff deal with the rest of what the church was all about Stefcui? Your ignorance of the RCC and church history is showing. You'll find a number of these things were discussed very early in the church and you would know this if you bothered to read what the church fathers actually said. In any case, I don't know of any Christians that worship Mary, but I do know several that ask the saints to pray for them, on their behalf (which was something that was also debated, in the early church too).

I am only presenting information... if I am wrong I would like to be corrected in a spirit of mildness and charity.

You're presenting ignorance, not information.