Is Calvinism Influenced by Gnosticism?

Is Calvinism Influenced by Gnosticism? A Huliganov.tv Exploration

John Calvin | Biography, Beliefs, Predestination, Writings, Reformation ...

There’s a curious accusation floating around the theological internet — that Calvinism is basically Gnosticism with a Geneva accent. It’s one of those claims that sounds clever until you actually look at the details, at which point it collapses like a soufflé in a thunderstorm.

Let’s take it apart the Huliganov way: with a bit of history, a bit of humour, and a refusal to let lazy categories do the thinking for us.

1. What Gnosticism Actually Taught (Spoiler: Not Much Like Calvinism)

Gnosticism was a 2nd‑century spiritual buffet of:

  • cosmic dualism (matter = bad, spirit = good)
  • a bungling demiurge who created the world by mistake
  • salvation through secret knowledge
  • a disdain for the physical world
  • docetic Christology (“He only looked human, darling”)

In short: a metaphysical soap opera.

2. What Calvinism Actually Teaches (Spoiler: Nothing Like Gnosticism)

Calvinism, by contrast, insists on:

  • one sovereign, good Creator
  • a good creation that is fallen, not evil
  • a fully incarnate, fully bodily Christ
  • salvation by grace, not secret passwords
  • the resurrection of the body, not escape from it

If Gnosticism is a cosmic escape room, Calvinism is a courtroom drama with a just Judge and a merciful Advocate.

3. So Why Do People Confuse the Two?

Because of two superficial similarities:

A. Both talk about “the elect.”

But in Gnosticism, the elect are a different species. In Calvinism, the elect are ordinary humans chosen by God.

B. Both emphasise human inability.

But Gnosticism blames matter. Calvinism blames sin.

These are not the same thing unless one is determined not to notice the difference.

4. The Deep Structural Differences

Here’s the table that ends the conversation:

Category Gnosticism Calvinism
God Many gods; demiurge One sovereign God
Creation Evil, flawed Good, fallen
Salvation Secret knowledge Grace in Christ
Anthropology Different classes of humans One human nature
Christ Often non‑bodily Fully God and fully man
Resurrection Denied or irrelevant Central and bodily

If someone still insists they’re the same, they may need more than theology.

5. The Church Fathers Would Laugh at the Comparison

Calvin stands firmly with:

  • Irenaeus (anti‑Gnostic champion)
  • Athanasius (incarnation defender)
  • Augustine (moral monotheism, not metaphysical dualism)

If Calvinism is Gnostic, then so is the Nicene Creed.

6. The Real Reason the Accusation Exists

It’s not historical. It’s not theological. It’s psychological.

People dislike predestination, so they reach for the scariest label they can find. “Gnostic” sounds exotic and dangerous, so it gets thrown around like confetti at a wedding.

But the resemblance is only skin‑deep, and even that skin is borrowed.

Conclusion: No, Calvinism Is Not Gnostic. Not Even Close.

The two systems differ in:

  • foundations
  • mechanisms
  • anthropology
  • cosmology
  • Christology
  • soteriology

The accusation is a category error — the theological equivalent of confusing a bicycle with a submarine because both have metal parts.

Israel and Palestine: the Story So Far

From Semitic Foundations to Eschatological Fulfillment: A Historical-Theological Reflection

The ancient Levant was home to several North Semitic peoples—Hebrews, Arameans, Phoenicians—whose cultural and linguistic influence shaped the ancient Near East. Aramaic, in particular, rose to prominence as the administrative language of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (c. 911–609 BCE), later adopted by the Achaemenid Persians (c. 550–330 BCE) as a lingua franca across their vast domains.

The Hebrew people, with their distinct covenantal identity, maintained the longest recorded historical claim to specific territories in the Levant. The northern kingdom of Israel fell to Assyria in 722 BCE, and its tribes were dispersed and assimilated. The southern kingdom of Judah was exiled to Babylon in 586 BCE, but under Cyrus the Great’s edict in 538 BCE, many Jews returned to Jerusalem, rebuilt the Temple (completed c. 516 BCE), and re-established their religious and scriptural traditions.

During the Hellenistic period (following Alexander the Great’s conquests, c. 330 BCE), and later under Roman rule (from 63 BCE onward), Jews lived under foreign dominion, often with limited autonomy. By the time of Jesus of Nazareth—whose life, death, and resurrection Christians affirm as the pivotal moment of divine incarnation and redemptive history—the region was under Roman control, and tensions between Jewish identity and imperial power were mounting.

In AD 70, Roman legions under Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple, fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy that “not one stone will be left on another” (Matthew 24:2). While the command structure was Roman, the legions included many auxiliary troops from Syria, Arabia, and North Africa. This destruction marked the beginning of the Jewish diaspora, though Jewish communities already existed across the Mediterranean, including in North Africa, Asia Minor, and Europe.

The Romans renamed the province “Syria Palaestina” after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE), deliberately erasing Jewish ties to the land. The term “Palestine” thus entered Western usage, though the region remained ethnically and religiously diverse.

Continue reading “Israel and Palestine: the Story So Far”

Exploring Roman Catholicism with AI

 

 

Loraine Boettner wrote a book about about Roman Catholicism…

Yes, Loraine Boettner wrote a book titled Roman Catholicism, first published in 1962. This work is a detailed critique of Roman Catholic doctrine from a Reformed Protestant perspective. Boettner examines various aspects of Catholic teachings, such as the authority of the pope, the veneration of Mary, the sacraments, and the concept of salvation, contrasting them with Protestant beliefs. The book has been both influential and controversial, sparking discussions and debates among readers2.

Would you like to know more about its themes or reception?

How was Boettner’s book received by critics and scholars?

Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism has been met with mixed reactions since its publication in 1962. Among Protestant readers, the book has been praised for its detailed critique of Roman Catholic doctrines and its defense of Reformed Protestant principles. However, it has also faced criticism for its polemical tone and perceived bias against Catholic teachings1. Some scholars and Catholic critics have argued that Boettner’s interpretations of Catholic doctrine are oversimplified or inaccurate.

The book remains influential in Protestant circles but continues to be a source of debate and discussion. Would you like to explore specific critiques or themes from the book?

I recommended it to a friend and he came back stating it needs to be fact-checked.

That’s a thoughtful observation from your friend! Roman Catholicism has been a polarizing book, and some critics have pointed out issues with its accuracy and representation of Catholic doctrine. In particular, scholars have noted that Loraine Boettner often relies on secondary sources and interpretations, which might not always provide a fully accurate or nuanced view of Catholic teachings. Some of his claims have been challenged as misrepresentations or oversimplifications.

If your friend is interested in understanding both perspectives, they could compare Boettner’s critiques with official Catholic sources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church or writings from respected Catholic theologians. Fact-checking in this way could provide a more balanced understanding.

It’s great that you both are open to diving deeper—discussions like these can be incredibly enriching! Does this help?

Can you give an example of an inaccurate statement he makes about Roman Catholicism?

One notable example of an inaccuracy in Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism is his reference to a speech allegedly given by Bishop Strossmayer during the First Vatican Council in 1870. Boettner cites this speech to argue against the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. However, the speech is widely recognized as a forgery. Bishop Strossmayer himself publicly denied making such a speech, and historical records confirm that it was falsely attributed to him.

This is one of several instances where critics have pointed out that Boettner relied on questionable sources or failed to verify claims. It’s a reminder of the importance of cross-referencing and fact-checking, especially with controversial topics.

Do Roman Catholics believe in venerating Mary?

 

Continue reading “Exploring Roman Catholicism with AI”

Q&A about whether a person who does not meet with other believers is a “good Christian”.

You cannot possibly be a good Christian.

There never has been such a thing. Only bad, failed people who were forgiven by God without having deserved any such thing, just purely out of the love and suffering of Jesus. They believed in Him and what He did, they asked for His redeeming death to be accounted to them, it was thus applied to their hearts according to the promise and their names were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, in the space already reserved for them before the first second counted on any clock, including the physical and biological “clocks” beloved of scientists.

If that’s you, and you are saved, then you are a Christian in the truest sense of the word, the Biblical one. If not, then you are also a Christian, but by a different definition of the word, a cultural Christian.  So is Richard Dawkins, by his own statement, and yet he doesn’t believe in God (which even Satan does) and has written many profitable books turning millions away from God and from salvation.

Now Dawkins himself might end up believing and being saved the way he is going, but he will always have such a shame to endure that he turned over to hell’s dominion, with a wave of his pen, so many millions of people. Maybe that’s the only thing stopping him from coming at this point, seeing how many of his prominent atheist friends are already on the Lord’s side. One example is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a big disappointment to the prominent atheist club who causes much rejoicing in heaven.

It’s down to what you believe, and this is something God alone knows, apart from you yourself. You can have doubts, but take your doubts to God and let Him resolve them.

On to your later and perhaps most telling point about “going to church”. I don’t know what “going to church” is. You are the Church, if you are believer, and I trust that you are not disembodied, so that you need to “go” to yourself at certain times. You do need in fact to go to a special place – but only for using the lavatory or if you have a boss or college that doesn’t want you working from home all the time. For things other than the lavatory or for working at your job or course, if you have one, no particular built structures are necessary. Even the lavatorial process can be performed in the woods, but do try to avoid the tracks where people are walking, and ensure you have tissues in your pocket.

As far as gathering with other believers is concerned, doing this, rather than being a hermit, is God’s model. Even John the Baptist, having practised hermitage for a long time, was surrounded by his own disciples by the time Jesus’ ministry began. Jesus Himself took time apart, various Old Testament prophets did also, but it is clearly not the long-term model and at some point we need to return to gathering and not forsake it. This is actually commanded, and so meeting other Christian is a matter of simple obedience. Blessings are usually withheld to Christians who practice disobedience.

There are various reasons why this is harder for some than for others. Some have logistical difficulties and cannot make it. Maybe they are sick or disabled or there is no Church free of doctrinal error and they have tried in vain to correct them and are not welcome there. They should ask the others who believe from the nearest sound gathering to help and maybe come to them. If those others ignore the call, the disobedience is on them.

Another reason why some of us avoid gatherings is that we are not very outgoing. We are what Jung would describe as introverted. But Jung also came to the conclusion that the two sorts of people are necessary for each other, as they charge each other’s batteries. An introvert charges when alone, and gives out when surrounded by other people, and for extroverts the situation is reversed. None of the extroverts go around thanking introverts for performing this service for them, they probably just dismiss them as shy folk who need to be coaxed out of their shells so they can have a good time. Nevertheless, for an introvert to go to a gathering is a service to the extroverts there and we should indeed be willing to serve each other. We wash an extrovert’s feet just by having a chat with them. This is why, quite apart form structured worship and the sacraments, and listening to God’s Word preached (this can be done over the intranet but being in the room is better for sure, you can’t be distracted and you encourage the pastor) the social time after and maybe before worship is also part and parcel of the gathering together which we are told not to forsake.

I don’t think someone can in fact be obedient to the command not to forsake gathering if they scurry away after the close of the service and don’t try to meet people. We should attempt to have some kind of interaction with every single person we see there. We should take an interest in them, know some things about them, starting with their names, and be sure to pray for them and have them pray for us.  This whole fellowship aspect is symbolised by the “sign of peace” in some services, but very often, if there is no real interaction and we don’t even know people’s names after weeks of seeing them, this peace sign is just a travesty and people should seek to examine themselves and see if something can be done by them about it.

Beyond this any congregation being worth its being called salt, and light, should be evangelising together.

So what are you doing with the time you save by not being with the others? More sole evangelism? More solitary study?

Or do you use the time to meet up with the enemies of God and go along with them for a good laugh? Or just watch TV shows full of prurience and vanity?

So please be obedient. The consequences of disobedience is not “not being a good Christian” but significant loss of reward. God has blessings reserved for you, both here and in eternity. You will not have them released to you though without showing obedience and bearing fruit.

Start today. Those who came last to the vineyard got the same reward. Stop with your hermitage and start building your everlasting heritage.

Should there be a mixing of Islam with other faiths?

I am not interested in mixing Christianity with Islam. Either they are right that Jesus is a man, or the Watchtower (who falsely claim to be “Jehovah’s Witnesses”) are right that He is the archangel Michael, or we Christians are right that He is “very God, begotten not created”, as the Adeste Fidelis terms it.

We cannot all be right. We could all be wrong and the nihilist view that He is mere legend might conceivably be true, though absurdly unlikely, but each grouping believes different things more than one of which cannot be true of Jesus at once.

Mixing Islam and Christianity would be possible if this were a secondary point, up for negotiation, but that is not the case, not for them and not for us.

So what I expect from Muslims is that they allow an open debate. They cannot expect to be able to preach to us about shirk and Allah not having partners and then put their fingers in their ears when e clarify that Jesus is not Allah’s partner, He IS Allah, to the extent that Allah mean the Creator God, rather than a specific view of God which only embraces the Father and ascribes to him none of the fatherly aspects that Christianity does.

If a Muslim comes here and wants to set out a dawah stall, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I would grant them that liberty. The bad news is that I would only grant them that liberty on the basis of there existing similar liberties for Christians and others in his country of origin.

If a Muslim wants to build a Mosque, or attend a mosque which another Muslim built, fine. But only for nationals of places where I have the right to go unperturbed to an Evangelical church or a Catholic or Orthodox church with no barriers to building a thriving community in his place of origin.

I would not grant them any more rights than I would expect Christians to be granted in their countries. I would not expect them to arrange things so that Christians had reserved jobs in the food industry, for example, which is what the halal meat industry amounts to in the West for Muslims.  If there has to be only Muslims involved in the value chains and production flows of halal food, then in the spirit of our Consumer law which already exists in other areas, it should only be placed on offer publicly if labelled up that Christians and other non-Muslims have not been allowed to participate in the making of this product. In plain text, not with some foreign word that we don’t all understand, why should we?

In Poland there one law about which foreign Companies are allowed to set up branches in Poland without incorporating.  I was worried about UK Companies losing their Branch privileges on Brexit because at one time this privilege was only for EU Companies and those from one or two contracted countries. Now the rule extends to any country which allows the same privilege to Polish Companies in their economy. And that seems to work very well.

I think this “Gegenseitigkeitsprinzip”, to give it a posh German name the ichthyologist and explorer Harro Hieronimus once taught me, ought to be used a lot more often in society, in relations between people and businesses it’s self-evident, but needs to be made more evident in dealings between communities and countries.