Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?

Well yes and no or sort of or something. Since God decrees everything it's true, but on the other hand we're all sinners, that's already been decreed you could say, long ago, same thing as Total Depravity, no new special personal decree is needed to give us an aversion to God and even to the idea of salvation, it's in us from our natural birth. It's why we need a new birth to care about the things of God.I keep coming back to this although I may be missing something Calvinistic in this way of thinking, don't know. As I keep saying it's all too convoluted and I end up regretting ever discussing it. BUT here we are again and I do have enough of a grip on Calvinism to want to try to answer this or that as it comes up.I don't know the Calvinistic explanation of His willing all to be saved but I just take it straight. I hate all this doublethink that people get into. The scripture is the foundation, just believe it, hope and pray for all to repent. Calvin is explaining the Bible and if we can't get his explanation just go back to the Bible, the rest is tedious and confusing. Yes I know you want to answer him because you are Arminian. Makes me tired. But here we are. Again he doesn't need to will it, we're all sinners who can't choose salvation unless he wills THAT. No, this is just the usual confusion people get into with Calvinism. As far as any of us knows, in our personal experience at any given moment we all have the ability to seek and to find it and Jesus SAYS to seek and we will find. It is therefore true. Those who want to be saved can seek and find salvation. Again the foundation is scripture. Calvinism is not of practical use at these points, it becomes hypercalvinism too easily. Again, anyone who desires salvation can seek it and find it. That's what scripture says. We cannot know in advance anything about who is the elect, who will seek and who will find, but scripture says to do it, just as it says to go into all the world and preach the gospel and leave the choosing to God. More hypercalvinism HBD. Just do what scripture says, seek and you will find. You don't know if you are of the elect or not but if you want to be saved you probably are. Calvin is not speaking to this level of things, he's explicating the parts of scripture that reveal God's ultimate will but that interferes at the daily level. As I say above I'm not sure how to understand that passage, but you are wrong to speak in terms of depriving people of hope. Anyone who wants to be saved has every reason to hope he will be saved if he does what scripture says to do. Seek and you shall find. Obey the scripture.Hope to finish this later.

Exactly. Whenever humans have to deal with the repercussions of unconditional election in their lives, they are best advised to ignore the doctrine. The doctrine is impractical and best observed by ignoring.

I stay away from this whole controversy as much as possible. These recent threads are probably the most thought I've given to the subject in years. I don't remember what Arminian or Wesleyan arguments I might have read at some time or other, but I've been in Arminian churches and experienced the practical effects of that doctrine. It's the most popular Christian way of thinking, no way to avoid it really. I know you said you started out in a Calvinist church, but for me it takes effort to rethink things from the Calvinist point of view.I read through your Wesley quotations and even found the whole treatise and read the first part of it. Are election and reprobation to be regarded as equally God's will? I keep arguing that reprobation is a passive thing since we are already in a condition of sin which condemns us from birth, so that election stands out as a positive act of mercy toward some, taking them out of that fallenness. However, the practical effect is the same as if each individual were chosen for either election or reprobation so I'll acknowledge that.But I still object to taking this general principle and applying it to individuals as if we could say that some are decreed to be without hope. The thing is those who are so decreed have no desire whatever to know God or be saved. There is an implication in all of this that there are some who would want to be saved but can't be because they are not elect and that's what I keep objecting to. Your saying that there are some who are deprived of hope.Wesley says the same thing and goes on to argue that election doesn't refer to salvation but to specific works God appoints for some. I haven't spent much time on that part and may get to it. But all I'm saying here is that while reprobation logically is as much God's will as election is, when you bring this down to the level of personal experience it loses all practical usefulness.This is where this argument always degenerates into hypercalvinism and weird efforts to think of your own experience in terms of absolute determinism. No, this argument needs to stay at the level above our personal experience. Nobody knows who is elect / reprobate, or how many etc etc etc. Those who are reprobate simply have no desire for the things of God (or they perversely refuse to do it God's way, really the same thing in the end), it's not as if they are being deprived of something they desire, they "have their reward" as Jesus says, it IS their desired reward.And there are always people one would think are hopelessly reprobate who have dramatic conversions, get born again and become firebrands for God. There is no way to predict any of this so it's foolish to try to apply it to the personal level. It's scriptural, it describes the nature of God and how the spiritual universe works, but we'll only drive ourselves crazy if we try to apply it at our level. God's perspective is higher than ours.Go into all the world and preach the gospel. Seek and ye shall find. That's for OUR level. Election is only useful to us long after we are saved as a way of having assurance that we ARE saved. I see no other practical usefulness for it. Oh, one other use: to remind us that we owe it all to God and deserve no credit whatsoever.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think that you are going to have to remove or seriously water down the whole concept of Hell before you say that those who don't "choose" to be saved are going where they want.But more importantly in Calvinist thought Gd bears the primary responsibility for all sin. Every sinful act is deliberately arranged by him. Even the Fall and all its consequences are entirely due to his will.How, then can he justly punish anyone for "their" sins ?How then could this be true? (Genesis 6:6)How then could it be said.... ?
(John 3:16)

Okay. 'each individual' And yet just agreed that Calvinism does apply to each individual. So you are actually objecting to Calvinism and not just Hyper-Calvinism. Or alternatively, what is a general principle that does not apply specifically to non-exceptional cases.

This has me thinking! Allow me if i may....jar always asserts that Jesus was but human while alive on earth.Yet the Nicene Creed states two relevant things in regard to this:Jesus was

quote:

---

the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (ons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

---

And yet Jesus

quote:

---

came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man

---

Notice how the Lord was grieved that He had made man on the earth...and yet regarding His Son...(who also was made man)

quote:

---

a voice from heaven said, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.

---

Just a thought. Carry on. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Well, we break God's laws (because he makes us do so, but we break them, just like Teddy spilled tea on Barbie in my analogy of the tea party). God, on the other hand, doesn't break any of God's laws because he didn't make any laws against himself doing stuff. So we're sinners and he isn't.You're looking at terms like sin and guilt, good and evil, right and wrong, as though they were ethical terms in a system of morality. In Calvinism this can hardly be said to be the case.

Yes each individual is either elect or reprobate according to Calvinism but when I said I didn't want to apply it to individuals I mean at the individual level. I'm accepting it at the general level but objecting to trying to talk about it in relation to our personal experience. I can regard it as true in the abstract but we don't know who is elect and how many so it's irrelevant in relation to individuals in our lives. Preach the gospel, seek and ye shall find.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We break God's laws because it's in our fallen nature to break them. We're at enmity with God because that's in our fallen nature, because our first parents lost spiritual contact with God. God ordained the Fall, but once the Fall occurred our nature changed. I think it's pretty obvious that the human race is fallen. I also think if someone wants to know God He's said He will not turn anyone away, so for all intents and purposes this is within our power even if at God's level nothing happens without His willing it. If you don't want to know God that's God's will of course, but the fact remains that if you do He's said how to go about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not saying people desire Hell, just saying people are content with their own way of doing things, not believing in God, not interested in seeking Him. Won't believe in Hell when told about it. For all intents and purposes they choose what happens to them.

That's ridiculous, Faith. You've just applied it to individuals at the individual level. In other words you accept unconditional election as true "in the abstract", but for any practical purposes other judging Arminianists or Lutherans, you actually ignore the doctrine.

As well as ignoring that Election simply defines a vile, evil god.

No I am not!INDIVIDUIALS IN TGHE AGGREGATE are either elect or reprobate according to God's decree. IN THE AGGREGATE, two groups of individuals. ABOUT WHOM WE CAN KNOW NOTHING, who is elect, who will be ultimately reprobate, nor how many there are in either group.THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS DOWN HERE AT OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL where we offer the gospel to known individuals and they respond to it one way or the other.The practical utility of Calvinism is in reminding us of God's sovereignty so that we don't take any credit for salvation, and in reassuring us that we are indeed saved. In evangelism it would condition our preaching of God as sovereign so that we don't tell people they "need to make a decision" which can produce false "salvation." ABE: The gospel is not "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" which is total Arminianism. For one thing we don't know whom God loves because that would be the same as knowing who is elect and who isn't which we don't know. The gospel is more like: Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, died for the sins of those who believe on Him, offers salvation to all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really? Like what? If it is such a forced point of view to take, maybe its not the best. OK. No, that is not really the implication. Those that are not the elect do not desire to be saved, but the reason they don't desire to be saved is that God did not give them that desire. If God could just give everyone the desire to be saved, then why does he not just do that? Instead, he only chooses some. And because there is only two categories, elect and reprobate, not placing a person in one category automatically places them in the other. But I guess you agree with this: But then you flip-flop... That's the problem, Calvinists don't like the implications of their own doctrine.Doctrine should be practical. It should address the question "How does this work? what does this mean?" This is how Calvinists water down the problem and try to make it not quite so toxic. "It's true, but we don't know who is and who is not, so we will act as if it's not true, but we know it is true, because it is." There are easier and more honest ways to solve the problem.But obviously this is just going to keep going round and round and round, so I think I will just drop it now.HBD

God does everything for His glory. That would include both election and reprobation, election showing His mercy, reprobation His justice. You want a different God who only saves people. Don't we all. But we wouldn't if we could see things from God's perspective, and I think there is a hint to that if we think about the really bad people which is why I brought that up.