Calvinism Defended:
Sex, and Those Gnostic Reformers
By
This is the 19th section of the e-mail exchange I had with Bill, an individual who objected to Calvinism. Click here to go back to the table of contents, or here to go to the full 88 page exchange.
In this exchange, I responded to a comment Bill made in his first e-mail, where he linked the ancient heresy of Manichaeism with Calvinism. I challenged Bill to provide the hard proof of his claims. He simply responded by making more charges that Calvinism is nothing more than repackaged Manichaeism and Gnosticism, which, if the reader has any understanding at all of those things, will realize just how truly outrageous the charge is.
From My First E-mail: As for your statement that there is a “major logical flaw” in Augustine and Calvin’s view of predestination and freewill, there is much to say:
1.
If you are going to equate Augustine and Calvin with Manichaeism, you
must substantiate your claims by accurately stating what each one believed and
taught concerning predestination and freewill, and then show how they are the
same. If you cannot do that, then
you cannot equate them.
Bill's Response: See above on Ever since Augustine. Augustine’s ideas on sex have left a deep mark on our civilization. He, more than anybody else, was responsible for the idea that sex is inherently evil.
My
Response: Your
comments don’t come anywhere close to doing what I asked.
Let me try it again: If
you are going to equate Augustine and Calvin with Manichaeism, you must
substantiate your claims by accurately
stating what each one believed and taught concerning predestination
and freewill, and then show how
they are the same.
If you cannot do that, then you cannot equate them.
Please document for me, Bill, precisely what Mani taught with regard to
predestination and freewill, and then show how that is a one-for-one
correspondence with the views of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc, and then please
demonstrate how Augustine and the others drew specifically from Mani in order to
formulate their teachings. You have not interacted at all with what Reformed theology
teaches about freewill, and you have yet to provide one direct quotation from
Mani himself that would verify your claims.
You just keep making accusations, all without offering any evidence.
For the record, I have read some Manichean writings in an effort to see
if in fact there is some correspondence. I
have not found a correspondence, but only things that are contrary to what the
Reformers taught.
As
for Augustine’s view of sex…who cares?
How does that figure at all in the discussion?
It is just one more piece of evidence, Bill, that you just keep reaching
for things to besmirch those you disagree with instead of dealing with the
substance of what they taught. But,
since you brought up his views on sex, first, as seems to be usual, you
completely ignore the historical context in which Augustine lived and the
struggles that everyone
had with regard to issues of sex in his day.
Stop reading your 21st sensibilities back into history and
condemning people for things they did or did not do on the basis of the benefit
you have had of living in the time frame you do when we have learned much more
than those who lived back then knew.
Secondly,
Augustine did not believe that sex was inherently evil, but, as Chadwicke notes
in his book, “feared sexuality (not least in himself) as passing easily out of
rational control.” (p.94). One
could hardly blame him, given some of the antics of those who engaged in open
sexual activity in his day. He
argued against the narrow and misguided claims of Julian.
As Chadwicke again notes, “He did not accept the Gnostic view that Adam
and Eve fell by having sexual union before the proper time.”
He then went on to write “On the Good Marriage” where he encouraged
that Christian marriage must not be disparaged, and insisted that in Christian
marriage the carnal impulse (sex) is put to a “good and right use.”
Yeah, that Augustine sure did blow it with regard to sex!
Now, does this mean that I accept all that Augustine believed with regard
to sex? No, not at all.
However, I am able to put his perspective into its proper historical
context; something you seem to be unwilling to do.
In the final analysis, this is just another straw man you have advanced
to diver attention from the real issue. The
issues are not about Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, who persecuted who, who
had the right view of sex, and who did not, but it is about Scripture, and what
God has said.
Bill Writes:
That is Manichean Gnosticism. Where
did he get those ideas about sex… not from the Bible.
Augustine was a Manichean Gnostic and Ambrose was a Valentinian Gnostic
before turning to Roman Catholicism. Ambrose
taught Augustine to ignore the passages of scripture that offended his
NeoPlatonic theology. Where did
Augustine get his ideas…Gnosticism.
My Response: I’ve basically already addressed this. Augustine was not a Gnostic, and to suggest so is just inaccurate. Let’s do this Bill: let’s stick with Jesus and Paul, etc. Now, can you please provide me a clear exegesis of such passages as John 1:12-13, 6:37-44, 63-65; 10:14-30, Eph 1, Rom 8:28-34; etc., that clearly proves your position, and can answer the Reformed exegesis of those passages?
Bill Writes: Augustine earlier theological writings attribute freewill to man and teaches salvation as synergy just as all of the earlier Christian theologians. Once Augustine became a Roman Catholic Bishop he gradually removed his mask and taught Manichean Gnosticism as Christianity. Take a look at the following ideas they can be traced to Manicheanism:
Unconditional
Election
Limited
Atonement
Preservation
of the Saints
Do these look familiar? I thought so. Now try to find them in scripture. I thought so. That’s why Calvinists quote around scripture and then quote TULIP as if it were scripture.
My
Response:
Can you
cite the precise place in the Manichean literature where “TULIP” is taught,
and then demonstrate how that understanding is the exact same thing as the
understanding rendered by Calvinists?
For the life of me Bill, I’m not quite sure why you keep banging away at this drum. I’m trying to get to Scripture. I provided numerous texts in the article I wrote as well as in my first e-mail to you, all for naught. You left the majority of those things untouched. I am more than willing to just go right to Scripture, but you keep running to what amounts to conspiracy theories and guilt by association tactics. The logical fallacies that I stated to you with regard to this equating of Manichaeism with Augustine and Calvin still stands, because as noted previously, you simply have not offered any substantive parallels. You must show a clear one-for-one correspondence, on the issues at hand (God’s nature/man’s nature) for your arguments to be valid.
From My First E-mail: 2. Your equating Manichaeism with the teaching of Augustine and Calvin contains a number of logical fallacies…
Bill's Response:
Since Manichean and NeoPlatonic theology is the
foundation of Augustinian theology, I logically conclude that Augustine got his
theological innovations from Manichean and NeoPlatonic theology.
He dressed it up as pious Christianity…but it was Gnosticism all the
same. That wasn’t hard.
My Response:
I hear lots of accusations, but have seen nothing
in terms of what the Manichaens actually taught, and what
Augustine actually taught. You
haven’t quoted one source, you’re just making accusations.
I also
find it extremely disingenuous on your part to keep making the charge, while
completely ignoring the fact that Augustine wrote clearly against
the Manicheans. While you may think
that Augustine was a Manichean, the Manicheans certainly did not think that he
was. But, let me just to cut to the chase on this one…I do not deny that
Augustine was a Platonist. I do not
deny that there were things that Augustine said that were not biblical.
But, my concern is not with Augustine.
My concern is the same as yours: with the testimony of Scripture.
So, while I may disagree with your assertion that Augustine, Calvin, et
al, were Gnostics, the bottom line is that Augustine and Calvin are not the
thing that is in view. The
Scriptures are. Just deal with the
texts, Bill. (!). The logical
fallacies cited in my former response are all still apparent in your response.