Let’s do a more intricate comparison of Calvinism and Gnosticism. Further, let’s pretend that the silence on all the other heresies listed means that you simply hadn’t gotten that far yet and will return to comment on them after we discuss Gnosticism.
Irenaeus wrote a book titled, “Against Heresies” in which he called attention to this particular fact. In this work (Book I Chapter 6) he said the following regarding Gnostic teaching:
“But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved. Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the “most perfect” among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that “they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed. For they declare that we simply receive grace for use, wherefore also it will again be taken away from us; but that they themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable conjunction; and on this account more will be given them.”
The Westminster Confession of Faith states regarding the perseverance of the saints:
I. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
II. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free-will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
III. Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevelancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their perseverance, fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.
The point is to show the similarities between what the Gnostics taught and what Calvinists teach. There are some differences, but the essence of the teaching is the same.
If a person is saved, it is not by means of his own conduct, but on account of his nature. While Gnostics and Calvinists differ in the origin of that nature, the doctrine is still the same. Gnostics say that it is due to a special spiritual nature. Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.
One is saved on account of one’s election to be saved. The Gnostics said that they were of the “elect seed.” Calvinists say that they are elected by God. Both agree that being elected precludes their actions from affecting that election in a negative way.
While one may willfully sin in the flesh, that does not affect the relationship that one has to God and salvation. The third part of the Westminster Confession of Faith (as quoted above) makes it plain that Christians may even live in sinfulness, yet not affect their salvation. The Gnostics just went one step further and stated that it was their desire and practice to do so.
Grace overcomes all sins regardless of the individual’s attitude toward sin. Calvinists state that grace is irresistible and the Christian cannot help but fall under it. Gnostics say that regardless how much sin they willingly commit, grace flows upon them freely for every sin they commit.
Both agree that there is nothing that can cause the one who is saved to lose their salvation.
The parallels are striking. How many times have we heard the person who believes in this doctrine of “once saved, always saved” say that the child of God cannot fall from grace? How many times have we heard those who believe this doctrine say that the child of God cannot lose their spirituality? How many times have we heard them say that the child of God cannot sin in such a way so as to lose his salvation? The similarities between this form of Gnosticism and the doctrine of “Once saved, always saved” are too numerous to ignore.
It was indeed the teaching and practice of the apostles to reject the doctrines of Gnosticism, including this doctrine. John’s account of the gospel of Christ and his epistle of 1 John were also written as a response to the doctrines of Gnosticism, and particularly, 1 John was written to refute the idea of once saved, always saved. One cannot honestly read through this book and ignore that conclusion. In addition, the following passages in the New Testament clearly indicate that Christians may sin so as to fall from grace: Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26; 2 Peter 2:20-22.
A little bowl of YOPIOS in the mornings does wonders, doesn’t it, my friend? The Church has interpreted the Bible, as is its authority and responsibility for 1700 years, as the Bible itself states. You appear to have erred in the same way so many of your brethren err inasmuch as you claim that it is me interpreting Scripture. It isn’t.
Scripture itself tells us that private interpretation is wrong. Groups as well as individuals.
As I said previously, all I can do is listen to your confession and compare it to the Church Fathers’ writings. I don’t get to define heresies.
That's why it's best to read Scripture and not the opinions of men which are not solidly founded on the word of God.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5
Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.
LOL. You continue to misstate people's positions, going so far afield that now you impart the RCC teaching to us Calvinists.
The RCC preaches infused righteousness. The Bible proclaims and most Protestants believe in an "imputed" righteousness.
We are not saved by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness and obedience and sacrifice of Christ.
His righteousness saves us and is mercifully imputed to us.
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21.
"And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." -- Romans 4:22-25"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:19
Great post, Mark! +Irenaeus perfeclty describes the deformed beliefs of the Reformed. They are closet Gnostics.
Bait much?
The point is to show the similarities between what the Gnostics taught and what Calvinists teach. There are some differences, but the essence of the teaching is the same.
Wow. Where do I begin? This is such an egregious example of a logical fallacy I could hardly believe it when I read it.
The fallacy (that of the undistributed middle) is easily demonstrated:
All A are B
All C are B
Therefore, all A are C.
Or, to apply it to your argument:
All Calvinists believe in perseverance
All Gnostics believe in perseverance
Therefore, all Calvinists are Gnostics
Then you have the audacity to claim you are showing similarity in the essence of the teachings between the two when you COMPLETELY FAIL to acknowledge the clear essential differences in the underlying details of both. Friend, this charge of Gnosticism on the part of the Reformed is nothing short of spurious and illegitimate.
If a person is saved, it is not by means of his own conduct, but on account of his nature.
Horsecrap! While we would readily affirm it is not by means of our own conduct, it is because we rely wholly upon the person and work of Jesus to provide the rightousness we cannot provide for ourselves. The redemption and sanctification of our nature is the result of our salvation, not the cause of it.
While Gnostics and Calvinists differ in the origin of that nature, the doctrine is still the same. Gnostics say that it is due to a special spiritual nature. Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.
That's just an outright LIE! It is the ROMAN CATHOLICS who believe in the infusion of Christ's righteousness to MAKE them actually righteous, whereas the Reformed believe in the impartation of His righteousness that they may be regarded as righteous. COME ON...just how far are you going to go in blatantly misrepresenting the Reformed doctrines in order to support this ridiculous claim of yours?
The parallels are striking. How many times have we heard the person who believes in this doctrine of “once saved, always saved” say that the child of God cannot fall from grace? How many times have we heard those who believe this doctrine say that the child of God cannot lose their spirituality? How many times have we heard them say that the child of God cannot sin in such a way so as to lose his salvation? The similarities between this form of Gnosticism and the doctrine of “Once saved, always saved” are too numerous to ignore.
Whatever. You can heap all the logical fallacies on us you want and it won't make them any more true. I typically don't go down the path of pointing out the obvious parallels I often see between Roman Catholic/Orthodox practice and naked idolatry because I'd rather to stick to the fundamental doctrines and the crucial differences that separate us rather than go for the low-hanging fruit, but with these assinine arguments you're making it sure makes it hard not to.
As I said previously, all I can do is listen to your confession and compare it to the Church Fathers’ writings. I don’t get to define heresies.
Well, you certainly are feeling free to (re)define Reformed doctrine and (re)define basic rules of logic. You seem utterly unconcerned with the details beyond whatever you can manipulate to justify your absurd claims.