Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Saint Moses the Black

Saint Moses the Black
Saint Moses the Black

Popular Posts

There was an error in this gadget

Labels

Saint John the Theologian

Saint John the Theologian
Saint John the Theologian

Followers

Total Pageviews

Follow by Email

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Pious Fabrications: Calvinism is a Gnostic sect

Pious Fabrications: Calvinism is a Gnostic sect by Dave

Quote:
"My recent conversations with Rhology have taken an interesting turn, and one
which is very telling in regards to the origins of our respective
interpretations of Scripture. In answer to my assertion that Calvinism is
essentially Gnosticism, Rhology found himself nodding his head in agreement with
the doctrines of the Gnostics and then responded with the question: Is
Augustinian theology Gnostic, then?

The answer is an emphatic YES!
Blessed Augustine of Hippo, the father of Western Christendom, introduced many
Gnostic concepts into his writings which later became key elements of Western
Christian belief. A little background information is necessary here. Augustine,
who lived in North Africa during the years 354-430, was a member of a Gnostic
sect before becoming a member of the Orthodox Church. He was also working with a
flawed Latin translation of the Scriptures, not the original Greek, due to his
own ignorance of Greek. In addition, due to a combination of geographic,
cultural, political, and linguistic factors, he was cut off from the
Greek-speaking half of the Church."


To read the rest please visit PiousFabrications.






ICXC NIKA

9 comments:

beowulf2k8 said...

"Blessed Augustine of Hippo, the father of Western Christendom, introduced many
Gnostic concepts into his writings which later became key elements of Western
Christian belief."


Why then do you still call this jackass 'blessed'? Any church that venerates Augustine as a saint or blessed is a synagogue of Satan.

Jnorm888 said...

If you want to continue to post on my blog then you will have to watch your language.

We don't have infallible Saints, and blessed fathers, and so they can error on individual points. But regardless, please show at least some level of respect for both my Church and it's Saints.

Thank you




ICXC NIKA

Drake Shelton said...

I have answered this stuff so many times, I just want to scream. The natural will of Calvinism is free agency. Free agency/Voluntary Agency defined: The will is not determined by physical or physiological factors. Free agency is not free will, there is a difference.

Free will defined: "the equal ability, under given circumstances, to choose either of two courses of action." (Dr. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation, pg 202)

It all depends on how you define freedom and there are other ways.

Calvinism uses free agency as the natural will and that which is bound is that which is defined above as free will.

I am still waiting for an answer on how the ontological barrier of Eastern Redemption is not gnostic.
Aulen acknowledges the objection that "Eastern theologians, places relatively little emphasis on sin, because he regards salvation as a bestowal of life rather than of forgiveness, and as a victory over mortality rather than over sin." [38]. He attempts to answer the objection by appealing to the fact that the Eastern view breaks down the barrier of the dividing wall or "partition between man and God." [39] Yet he never says what that partition is. The problem is the partition in the context of the entire system of the Eastern Church is man's mortal and material reality, which is clearly Gnostic. His clear acceptation of Gnostic teaching is made manifest as he calls Irenaeus' view of sin to be organic; Aulen says, "he always regards sin organically" [39]. This is Manichean par excellence. Aulen says again, "Athanasius does, in fact, regard sin as not merely the cause of the corruption from which men need to be saved, but as being identical with it." [60]. He makes it plain, sin is material corruption. The consequence can be seen in many fathers but Nyssa is very clear:

Nothing I have said here is even close to an insult or uncivil. please answer the argument. Perry won't answer this one, David won't answer it. Let's see the answer. Prove it show it!

ψευδἸωάννης said...

"The will is not determined by physical or physiological factors." Instead, it is determined by the decrees.

Irenaeus was Manichaean even though he died before Mani was ever born. There's no chance that Mani the syncretist might have stolen some ideas from (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity.

Drake Shelton said...

ψευδἸωάννης
I don't know where Mani got his ideas, neither do you, let's just debate the philosophy of it. Give me a distinction between corruption/sin/death (In the Eastern Orthodox sense)and the body. In a recent post on the atonement another gentleman cannot answer this one either.

""The will is not determined by physical or physiological factors." Instead, it is determined by the decrees.
"
Is this supposed to be a refutation? I am a Christian and I don't believe in open theism so I give your reply a hearty Amen. Obviously, you do not believe in Christianity.

Drake Shelton said...

ψευδἸωάννης
I don't know where Mani got his ideas, neither do you, let's just debate the philosophy of it. Give me a distinction between corruption/sin/death (In the Eastern Orthodox sense)and the body. In a recent post on the atonement another gentleman cannot answer this one either.

""The will is not determined by physical or physiological factors." Instead, it is determined by the decrees.
"
Is this supposed to be a refutation? I am a Christian and I don't believe in open theism so I give your reply a hearty Amen. Obviously, you do not believe in Christianity.

ψευδἸωάννης said...

Drake,

A non sequitur does reflect well on your stated interest in debating the philosophy in question. That I point out your claim to believe in both determined wills and free agency does not entail my disbelief (or belief) in Christianity.

You claim to want to debate philosophy while at the same time you seem to have no concern for the history of ideas. But there are no pure, history-free ideas. All ideas have a history, and your anachronistic reading of Irenaeus and Manichaeism poses a serious problem for your philosophical notions whether you recognize it or not.

Based on this evidence, I consider it obvious that we do not share common assumptions about what considerations are necessary in debating philosophy. Without common ground, there can be no debate. And frankly, this combox isn't the place to establish that common ground.

Jnorm said...

Drake Shelton,

You would know where Mani got his ideas from if you read the fathers and witnesses that argued with him and his followers.

Jnorm said...

I keep telling you we don't believe what you want us to believe, but you never listen.

Related Posts with Thumbnails