FROM THE HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THE EARLY CHURCH: THE FIRST INSTANCE OF REJECTING ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION AND "ORDAINING" "FEMALE PASTORS"
[Note: Permisssion has been Granted and this Page was used for an Academic Paper in Theology at Oral Roberts University, October 2002.]
Some date the Doctrines of Predestination and Election only to Augustine, and some, very misinformed, just to John Calvin or "Calvinism". However, as we shall see, none of this is so. There was a much earlier instance recorded in the history of the early Church of rejection of these same key Biblical Docrines. It was based on Gnostic Dualism. It happened in the 2nd Century A.D. with Marcion; and Marcionism was Ruled a Heresy by the entire True Church.
WHO WAS MARCION?
Marcion (c. 84-160 A.D.) was raised in the Church. His father was bishop of Sinope in Pontus. He subscribed to anti-Jewish and Gnostic philosophy which he said represented the "true gospel". Then he and his followers set about to start "their own denomination" without regard to The One True Church then in existence. He combined Christian teaching with Gnostic philosophy, attempting to bring this philosophy into the Assemblies as valid doctrine while adding his own "revelations".[1] Some of his teaching was similar to Doceticism (which denied the True Humanity of Jesus).
About 144 A.D., Marcion journeyed to Rome where he came under the influence of the Gnostic teacher Cerdo. Marcion soon began preaching these views and drew a sizeable following. Because of his Gnostic teachings, the United True Assemblies as One Church was made aware that his teachings were contradictory to what the Bible really said.
First of all, Marcion had a problem with the G-d of the Old Testament as he compared Him with the New Testament. He rejected Election and Predestination in agreement with the Gnostics. He could not reconcile these things.
Marcion also developed a distinct division between Israel and the Church. He said that they did not relate together and so, through the development of Semi-Marcionism, he could be called the forerunner of the Dispensational view.
TO REJECT OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES TO PREDESTIBNATION AND ELECTION HE TAUGHT "TWO GODS"
The Gnostics believed in "two gods", one a "lesser god" that had created us and the entire material universe (this was the "Predestinating and Electing god" of the Old Testament), and the "Supreme Father" (whom the Gnostics called the "god" of the New Testament) who was Totally Spiritual (and did not Predestinate anyone). The "Supreme Father" had nothing to do with "the flesh" either. That had been created by the "lesser god of the Old Testament". All flesh was evil, and all of the spirit, good. This is "basic Gnostic Dualism with a new testament twist". Gnostics and Marcion both rejected The Resurrection of the body as well because the "flesh" was evil and could not be Redeemed as it was created by "the lesser god " of the Old Testament who arbitraily "Chose" and Elected people as Gnostics had always taught.
Some of this had appeared in the ancient world as a result of Greek philosophical beliefs. B.C. Jewish sects such as the Essenes and Pharisees totally rejected Gnostic teachings,[2] as both believed in the Resurrection of the body.
HOW SOME BASIC ROOTS OF TODAYS' "LOVE GOSPEL" CAN BE TERMED "SEMI-MARCIONITE" DOCTRINES
Marcion preached that the G-d of the New Testament (The Supreme Father) Revealed in Jesus Christ was soley a "God of Love", and he totally denied Election and Predestination.[3] as had the Gnostics.
Marcion simply said the G-d of the Old Testament was not the same One as the New Testament. This "Old Testament god" was called the "Demiurge" in Gnostic philosophy. Gnostic teaching had alweays been against the Bible.
Marcion called Him the "Jew God". Ireneus records that Marcion referred to the Old Testament God as, "the creator of evils, lustful for war, inconstant in his attitude, and self-contradictory."
ACCORDING TO MARCION, THE "JEW GOD" WAS THE AUTHOR OF ELECTION
He was intellectually honest to this degree: he could not deny that G-d in the Old Testament Chose the Jewish people over all others, so he simply said that the "Old Testament God" was not the same as the New Testament G-d.
Todays' Arminian "Love Gospel" reflects this teaching in places but does not carry all his teachings to the extremes he did, but there are several surprising similarities. It can be termed "Semi-Marcionism": heresy.
Marcion preached that the G-d of the New Testament was only "a God of love"; completely "non-judgmental"; therefore totally different from the G-d of the Old Testament, which he called the god of the Jews. He said the "god of the Jews" (the "Demiurge") Attributes' were capricious, cruel, judgmental and vindictive, but the Attributes of the G-d of the New Testament were only Loving and Forgiving: the "Supreme Father"; while "Jekovah" on the other hand, the "god of the Jews", only chose "special people" (the Jews) and by doing so had been completely arbitrary and unfair. He also completely rejected the early Assemblies teachings concerning the Doctrines of Predestination and Election as found in Ephesians 1:4-15; John 1:12,13; John 6:44; Acts 13:48.
This was how Marcion ridded himself of the Doctrines of Election and Predestination which could not be denied from Old Testament Scripture.
He taught the G-d of the Old Testament therefore could not be the Supreme Father of Jesus. The Old Testament "god of the Jews" (Jekovah) out of ignorance -or- evil design had made us and the material universe. On the other hand, the Supreme Father of Jesus had Created a higher Spiritual Universe. In this he found agreement with the Dualism of the Gnostics.
He believed the Old Testament Scriptures (Genesis-Malachi) were inspired by the "lesser god": "Jekovah", and not the Supreme Father. The Old Testament G-d was arbitrary and capricious, only choosing certain people and not others, arbitrarily placing women under men, keeping accounts and constantly judging and punishing people for disobedience.
The Supreme Father, the Father of Jesus, was a constantly loving "non-judgmental" G-d who required nothing of anyone except loving Him. He gave everything freely, including Salvation. The Supreme Father did not seek to be Obeyed at all, but only to be "loved".
He naturally rejected G-ds' Law because it was a product of the "lesser God".
He taught we are Jekovahs' material creatures, but the Supreme Father, knowing this, had compassion on us and sent Jesus, His Son (not Jekovahs' son) to rescue us out of the material world of "the god of the Jews". As stated, The Supreme Father was All-Loving and totally Non-Jugmental, and always forgave everyone.
He also taught that Jesus was not born physically of Mary because that would have made Him subject to Jekovah who ruled the material universe: the flesh. Jesus simply "mystically appeared" full-grown during the reign of Tiberius.
Jesus was not the Messiah of the Old Testament either. Yeshua of the New Testament arrived "presto!" from another dimension, and the "Messiah of the Jews" is still future.
Marcion simply rejected totally the Old Testament as a product of an "inferior god of the Jews" which must never be taught or read in his "churches". His "churches" were the first in Christian history to "ordain" "female pastors" to "spread the Gospel of love".
HOW MARCION DEALT WITH OPPOSING NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE
Marcion accepted the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke only. He said Paul had a better understanding than anyone of these things. In those places in Luke and Pauls' Epistles where Old Testament verses are quoted and speak of such things as women being under men for instance, he simply taught that the New Testament Scriptures had been tampered with by "Judaizers". Jewish sources (today they use the term "Pharisees", or might try to shout people down with such phrases as, "we are not under that old Jewish Law!"). These "Jewish sources" and sympathizers had, they said, altered the New Testament and added Old Testament Scriptures to the New Testament secretly, corrupting his "New Testament".
Any Old Testament Scriptures in the New Testament were inserted later by "Jewish conspirators"!
While his teaching was Gnostically-based, Marcion threatened the Assemblies even more than the Gnostics. He organized his own Church with its own bishops, including "female teachers" and "pastors" offering totally different teachings on Creation, the Incarnation and the Resurrection.
POLYCARP MEETS MARCION
The Apostle John had as his chief Disciple, Polycarp. The Apostle John handed-down the teachings of the Apostles directly to Polycarp. Polycarp later became the Bishop of Smyrna. From the records of the early Church, Marcion traveled to Smyrna and ran into Polycarp there. Upon seeing Polycarp, Marcion asked, "Do you recognize me?" Polycarp said, "I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan."
Marcion was answered by The Apostles' Creed in 150 A.D. The statements set forth defeated Marcionism and Gnosticism as well.
These then became the questions asked at Baptisms in the True Assemblies:
1. Do you believe in One G-d, and the Father Almighty (parakrator), Maker of Heaven and earth?
"Parakrator" means Absolute Ruler of all, Spiritual and material. Nothing falls outside His Rule.
This was to deny the Marcionite teaching that a "lesser god" had created the material world.
2. Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of G-d, who was born of the Holy Ghost and of Mary the virgin, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose again at the third day, living from among the dead, and ascended unto Heaven and sat at the Right Hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?
Being born "of Mary the virgin" was not to bring about Mariology (the worship of Mary), but to state that Jesus was born and did not "mystically appear" full-grown in the reign of Tiberius. The mention of Pontius Plate was to state that Jesus' crucifixion was an actual historical event in space and time. To "judge the living and the dead" was the statement that Jesus would judge. Marcion taught there would be no Judgment at all.
3. Do you believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy church (ekklesia)[4], and the resurrection of the flesh?
The "holy church" did not mean the "Roman Catholic Church" as "head" as it did not exist as such in 150 B.C. This was a statement that Marcions' churches and the Gnostic Churches were at variance with the consensus of All the Assemblies of Christendom who agreed concerning true doctrine. Previously, the Churches had not had this type large-scale attack by false teaching. For this reason, the Assemblies United as "One Church" to rid itself of Marcionism, female "pastors" (Gnostic teachings), and other non-Christtian falsehoods.
The statement "resurrection of the flesh" was that the "material flesh" will one day be Resurrected. All Gnostics and Marcion as well rejected physical bodily Resurrection. They taught the soul went back to the "Pleroma" (Presence of God) and that was the end. There was no such concept as physical Resurrection in Gnosticism or Marcionism.
Marcion was condemned as a heretic and Excommunicated in July of 144 A.D.
PEOPLE OF G-D MINISTRIES
� Copyright 2001-2004 People of G-d Ministries, Inc. No reproduction or redistribution without the Prior Written Consent and Approval of People of G-d.
FOOTNOTES
[1
Nevertheless, she is still Enthroned On High with a Crown of 12 Stars. All this without usurping any mans' office. Her Faithful Obedience was what counted, not promoting herself and taking any mans' Rightful Office.
So we must ask ourselves, Who do these "female pastors" who are "ordained", "sharing ordination" with their husbands, starting their own "churches" or "baptizing people" think they are? Better than holy Mary?
The early Church declared such ones and those that supported them Marcionite Heretics and they were swiftly Excommunicated. Also anyone Baptized by a woman had to be re-Baptized by a Man of G-d.
[2
This conjecture is marred by technical and substantial errors as it ignores basic evidence. First, the Dead Sea Scrolls never mention any "2 gods"; only "One G-d" throughout. Second and third and fourth, Election, Predestination, the Resurrection of the dead were fully expounded as valid teachings in Essene literature. All these things the Hellenizing Gnostics rejected, but the Essenes totally accepted One G-d, Election, Predestination and the Resurrestion of the body. Gnostics also held to the "Zoe Gnosticism Principle" of female instruction. In the Greek view, Sophia was greater then Logos, and so Logos was ruled by the feminine principle. The Essenes, on the other hand, always had Men as Instructors in things Spiritual: Aaronic Priests as their Teachers and Authorities.
Gnostic ceremonies also included typically pagan emotionally ecstatic rites involving women dancing about, vocalizing skyward with upraised hands, accompanied by music. The Essenes had no such pagan rituals.
These are all major contradictory doctrinal positions which are at absolute variance between Gnostics and Essenes. The argument that the Essenes were "Gnostics" is therefore completely untenable.
[3
The Gnostic teachings also supported what would later become known as the Arminian definition of "election" and "predestination" based on Foreknowledge. Once again, Marcions' acceptance of the Gnostic definitions (their "enlightened teachers and pupils" formed the "elect" who "willed" their own "salvation") and his obvious rejection of the Old Testament "Jewish" definitions revealed his Heresy.
G-d does the Choosing, Elects and Predestinates, not man.
The Reformation teaching based on Augustine with regard to Uncondtional Election has been substituted with "unconditional love" as Salvific. While it is true that G-d loves everyone "unconditionally" under Common Grace (Matthew 5:45), Common Grace does not Save. Salvation is Given because of Special Grace, only for His Elect. Ephesians 1:4-15; John 1:12,13; John 6:44; Acts 13:48 again.
G-ds' Holiness and Sovereignty is not subservient to the will of unsaved man.
Because of the strength and number of Older Testament passages concerning the "Choosing" (or the Election: Choosing means to Elect) of the Jewish people ("G-ds Chosen people" is still used today), he could not deny that the Older Testament said these very things. Marcion just could not bring himself to believe that it also applied to Christianity. He asserted that passages about Election in the New Testament were forgeries placed there by "Jewish conspirators"!
Therefore, he used the Gnostic belief system to deduce that "Jekovah" (Who he called "the god of the Jews") had to be a completely different god and a "lesser god" than the "god" of the New Testament.
On the B.C. issue of Predestination and Election, the Pharisees and the Essenes disagreed. The Pharisees held that mans' free will decided (a Gnostic teaching) plus "good works" for Salvation, while the Essenes taught Predestination and Election only, through Faith alone which was a Gift and undeserved.
The Saducees were a different case altogether. They were even closer to Gnosticism than the Pharisees: the Sadducees rejected the Resurrection of the body as did the Gnostics, but they were anti-Gnostic and anti-Pharisaical as they rejected angels. But that is amother story.
[4
It meant all of the True Assemblies United as One Church which was still true at that time. There were no "Denominations" or "separate sects". Such a thing would have been unthinkable at the time of the writing of the Apostles' Creed. All the Churches were in Agreement about these things and United against Heresies.
In the early Church, every city had a Bishop. Each Bishop had a voice in all decisions. All the Bishops could read write and speak Greek. Reading the Grrek New Testament was for them about as easy as reading the daily newspapers in your own language, because Greek was a Universal lanhuage at that time. They could reach conclusions very rapidly and judge heresy very quickly. They also had access to many more manuscripts than we do today. Augustine cited and quoted from several now lost works as being completely authoritative. All the Assemblies acted together as "One Holy Church" in Unity and in Agreement. This is what the Apostles' Creed means by "The Holy Church". This was also centuries before there was a "pope".
The Bishops of Rome in the early Church did not have very much input or "theological clout" at all in the 1st 5 Centuries, no matter what Romanists may say. There were simply no great theologians in Rome as compared to other major cities such as Smyrna, Constantinople, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Carthage or Alexandria for examples. These were the cities of the great theologians, not Rome. Rome did have a voice as did all the other Churches, but it was consistemtly disregarded as binding because of Romes' distinct lack of noteworthy theologians and scholars who could present an authoritative theological argument based on Scripture that all the Assemblies could accept. Rome was not by any stretch of the imagination considered any dominant theological force in the first 5 Centuries of the Church, and therefore the Bishop of Rome was no "great leader of the whole Church" neither produced any original Rulings. Certainly no one in the 1st 5 Centuries ever referred to them as "popes" as the Romanists now claim they all were.
Berkhof, Louis. The history of Christian doctrines.
Grand Rapids, Michigan. Banner of Truth. 1937.
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Internet Edition.
The Columbia Encyclopedia. Sixth Edition. 2001.
Internet Edition.
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Chrisianity.
Peabody, Massachusetts. Prince Press. 1999.
The Muratorian Canon Fragment.
Other sources also appreciatively used. Please contact for additions
and credit.
Translations: 
