The Work, Epictetus, and Calvinism

The following excerpt is from some professor's classroom notes. I post it because of the connection drawn between Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius on the one hand and Calvinism on the other. I've always seen a connection - or the connection - between the Work and Calvinism, and here you can see perhaps the connective tissue. I mean, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are often presented as Work-like influences, etc.

Beyond the excerpt and subject matter of this connection I wonder if theology in general can be a detour. I mean, theology usually gives one truths about the Bible that it is not concrete what we are to do with. I mean, practically. I think of my own history of it. I just simply read the Bible and lo and behold I connect with the Work teaching. I didn't need precise, orthodox theology to connect with either the Bible or a language of the Holy Spirit (I stand by seeing the Work as a language of the Holy Spirit). And now that I do know precise orthodox theology there is not much I can do with it even terms of knowledge, other than validate understanding I acquired from the Bible itself and from Work knowledge and experience. And beyond that there is a possible negative influence from the precise orthodox theology in that it puts you in bondage to what man has stated the Bible is about. Of course, there is unlimited nonsense believed about the Bible and the Christian faith, and sound doctrine is a real thing (the Bible talks of 'sound doctrine'), but it is derived from the Bible itself.

When you think of practical levels of the faith and how it acts out you tend to think in terms of the point where darkness challenges you and you must respond. The point where you must walk in the Spirit and not the flesh. The point where you are freed from the bondage and darkness of the devil's kingdom and you claim, boldly, possession of the Kingdom of God, and all that that means.

2. Did Calvinism Come from Stoicism?

A. Some critics suggest that the doctrines of grace actually came from Stoicism, not Scripture. They sometimes point out that John Calvin studied Stoic philosophy before his conversion and wrote his only pre-conversion book on Seneca’s De Ciementia. It is implied that he simply baptized Stoicism just as Thomas Aquinas borrowed heavily from Aristotle.
B. By the time of the N.T., there were 2 main Greek philosophies: Stoicism and Epicureanism. Both are mentioned in Acts 17:18. The leading Stoics included Seneca, Zeno, Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus. Stoicism stressed fate, Natural Law, providence, cosmic determinism, virtue - as opposed to the Epicurean ideas of cosmic chance, indetermimsm, and lifestyles that led to vice.
C. But there are fundamental differences between Stoicism and Calvininistic Christianity. Stoicism was basically pantheistic. God was basically impersonal and impassible - He had no emotions of joy or anger, therefore of neither love nor wrath against sin. True, the Stoic God determined all things, but Stoic fate is not Christian predestination or providence. In early Stoicism, even God is under fate; later, God is fate, Natural Law and providence. This eliminated the possibility of miracles (hence the skepticism mentioned in Acts 17). And there was no special revelation either, such as Scripture. Since God is all, matter is eternal. There are no second causes
This distorted human responsibility as well. Because divine sovereignty was over-emphasized, human responsibility simply meant that virtue was attained by resignation to the inevitable. The Stoics called this APATHEIA (apathy), or passivity of emotions and will. There was no place for original sin. Man may become perfect by this APATHEIA, but he may also lose it. And there is no life after death. None of this can be considered Christian or Calvinistic.
D. How, then, do we explain at least a semblance of similarity? Did the Christians borrow from Stoicism? No. John Gill has suggested that the founder of Stoicism, Zeno, was actually a Hellenistic Jew - who simply baptized the O.T. into Greek philosophy. That might be correct, but hard to prove. It would be more precise to explain it like this: Eph. 2:13 says that Gentile unbelievers were “afar off”, but some were further off than others. Stoicism simply was one of the Greek philosophies that were closer to truth than the others. This is not to go as far as Justin Martyr and Thomas Aquinas, who basically suggested that Plato and Aristotle were more or less “Pre-Christian Christians”.
E. Suffice it also to say that the debates between Stoicism and Epicureanism were similar to the debates between Augustine and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius, etc. The Bible never borrowed from Stoicism, but there are strong indications that Pelagius and Arminius unconsciously borrowed from Epicureanism, Stoicism’s rival. Gordon Clark has made the astute observation that Epicureanism and its children tended to produce licentiousness, while Stoicism, Calvinism and Augustinianism have tended to produce virtue and holiness.