Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?

Nothing happens without God, but God can do nothing evil in the sense of sin. That's scriptural. These things are beyond human understanding, I'm just trying to say what I get out of Calvin and I may get a lot of it wrong.God is love but in relation to sin He is wrathful, and in fact that is an expression of His nature as love since sin opposes love. Acts of wrath follow from the enmity against Him which is our sin nature, which we all share from birth.I think of it all more "in the nature of things" meaning inevitable cause and effect that results from the nature of God as love and goodness, and the nature of good and evil, than in terms of God's motivations as such, but I may have that wrong too. The idea, however, is that something in the very nature of Creation of sentient beings seems to lead to this enmity against God which provokes His wrath, and yet the only alternative would be for Him never to have created anything.You are seeing all this as evil in God, I am not. God to me is love, goodness, faithfulness, mercy and everything else that's good.

quote:

---

Nothing happens without God, but God can do nothing evil in the sense of sin. That's scriptural. These things are beyond human understanding, I'm just trying to say what I get out of Calvin and I may get a lot of it wrong.

---

Obviously sin cannot be willed by God if it deserves punishment. That would be God playing with humans as toys, punishing them for the things he made them do.

quote:

---

The idea, however, is that something in the very nature of Creation of sentient beings seems to lead to this enmity against God which provokes His wrath, and yet the only alternative would be for Him never to have created anything.

---

But why would that be ? It doesn't seem to be a logical necessity - and if it was, the saved would have to be enemies of God forever, even after the Final Judgement. But if it is not a logical necessity it must be God's choice. And that changes everything.

quote:

---

You are seeing all this as evil in God, I am not. God to me is love, goodness, faithfulness, mercy and everything else that's good.

---

But that's not true. We've said what we see as evil and why.

I'm trying to account for how God could in any sense be the originator of any acts of sin considering that God can't sin and yet Calvin says God is the originator, at least according to Dr. A's quote. my answer being that the "evil" God does, which means calamity and not sin (Isaiah 45), is all punitive, it is not originative, sin originates in humanity. So the sense in which God is in any kind of sinfulness, since nothing can happen without Him, and yet He cannot sin, still needs to be sorted out.But Dr. A's quote is probably in error or out of context. Here's another quote from Calvin that seems to disagree with those given by Dr. A: This is from John MacArthur . He says God is not the author of evil, which is scriptural, that He "permits evil agents to act" but this does imply a degree of free will in the creature that seems to be excluded by Calvin's way of putting it in the quotes given by Dr. A at least. However, something like this must be true because scripture is very clear that God is not the author of sin. Sin originates in the creature, however we are supposed to understand this.These things are true according to scripture:God is love; God is good.
God is not the author of sin.
He is the author of calamity which results from sin. Is. 45.
Humanity is the originator of sin.MacArthur says sin is just a lack of moral perfection in a fallen creature, but how this goes together with what we are discussing here I'm not sure.I just have to conclude that this is where the discussion becomes too abstract and philosophical and beyond my ability to follow it.But I'll have to think more about what Calvin seems to be saying in the quotes given by Dr. A. Since nothing happens without God, and yet God is not the author of sin, how does sin happen?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, first, it's just my way of trying to account for how sin can exist, God be sovereign over all things and yet not the author of sin. But I'm quite willing to be wrong about this. I don't get this at all. Salvation is a transformation, a rebirth of the spirit which is of the nature of God. Our sin nature is ended by our faith in Christ's death and resurrection, we are made new creatures, reborn into an entirely new kind of life than that we were born to in the flesh. Well, according to scripture it can't be.

quote:

---

Well, first, it's just my way of trying to account for how sin can exist, God be sovereign over all things and yet not the author of sin. But I'm quite willing to be wrong about this.

---

To do that it would have to say that God does not control the actions motivated by this assumed emnity.

quote:

---

I don't get this at all. Salvation is a transformation, a rebirth of the spirit which is of the nature of God. Our sin nature is ended by our faith in Christ's death and resurrection, we are made new creatures, reborn into an entirely new kind of life than that we were born to in the flesh.

---

Then you don't understand logical necessity. You can't be transformed into something that cannot exist.

quote:

---

Well, according to scripture it can't be.

---

OK, so scripture says you're wrong.

I'm happy to be wrong about the whole mess. I hate arguments about Calvinism, always end up sorry I got into it.

You hate the arguments because your views don't make sense. Dropping Calvinism would be the obvious solution - after all there are other, less problematic interpretations of scripture. But I doubt you'll do that.I suppose that's your problem all over. You hate being wrong but won't make the effort to be right.

You're so charming and gracious.No, these arguments just get into territory that is beyond human understanding, but Calvinism's main principles are still demonstrably scriptural.

Insisting that you are correct in some way that nobody can understand is not much of an argument. Especially when the problems aren't exactly complicated.And if Calvin's positions are contradicted by scripture as well as supported by it.

Calvin knew the Bible thoroughly. There is no way any of his positions contradict scripture. The task is to figure out how he meant the things that seem to be contradictory. That's also the task where people find contradictions within scripture because we know it's God's word and therefore there aren't any. Not that I expect such reasonableness from unbelievers in Bible inerrancy of course, but that's the only way the Biblical revelation can be understood.

Faith, you do understand that many here have actually read the Bible and so can honestly report on what is actually written, including all of the contradiction, factual errors and failed prophecies.The fact that you know there are no errors is just another example of you being totally out of touch with reality.Now if you change that to "That's also the task where people find contradictions within scripture because we believe it's God's word and therefore there aren't any." then even though folk will know you are simply wrong they will accept that it is your belief.Edited by jar, : hear ----> here

​

appalin spallin

Sorry jar I don't buy your totally antichristian thinking that fools some people but not me. The Bible IS inerrant, and Calvin knew that too. There are no contradictions in it, those are all in your mind.

quote:

---

Calvin knew the Bible thoroughly. There is no way any of his positions contradict scripture.

---

And as usual you can't be bothered to find out the truth. Do the research. There are plenty of Christians who'll argue against Calvin Bible.

quote:

---

That's also the task where people find contradictions within scripture because we know it's God's word and therefore there aren't any. Not that I expect such reasonableness from unbelievers in Bible inerrancy of course, but that's the only way the Biblical revelation can be understood.

---

There's nothing reasonable about twisting the "word of God" to fit with your beliefs.

quote:

---

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

​

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

---

quote:

---

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

​

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

---

Faith, which of those two passages is inerrant?Are two and seven the same number?Which number is correct?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

You're a typical Bible trasher. There is no contradiction. The first says they will go by twos and ALL WILL GO BY TWOS, only the clean ones will go by sevens, which is made specific in the next chapter. NOBODY has a problem with this except a typical Bible trasher like you who doesn't have a clue about the conventions of scripture.