|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
this is a copout. Inquiring into the nature of God is pretty much a theologian's job description. I noticed this as well. I find it perfectly acceptable to admit we don't know or can't know some particular aspect about God, but Calvin's problem is, as you say, he does so after he paints himself into a corner. After he has piled up logical inconsistencies, that is when he declares that we dare not think too hard. He states that A=B and B=C, but A does NOT equal C - but don't actually think about that because it's not something you can understand. Just by the logic alone it is clear he has something terribly wrong. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I find it perfectly acceptable to admit we don't know or can't know some particular aspect about God, but Calvin's problem is, as you say, he does so after he paints himself into a corner. After he has piled up logical inconsistencies, that is when he declares that we dare not think too hard. He states that A=B and B=C, but A does NOT equal C - but don't actually think about that because it's not something you can understand. Just by the logic alone it is clear he has something terribly wrong. But is that not the very basis of "Biblical Christianity"; the Commandment that "Thou shalt not think too much"? Is that not how they approach all theology; taking "proof texts" out of context to avoid the implications when the full dialog is considered; simply declaring that there are no discrepancies, contradictions and outright falsehoods in the Bible and ignoring what is actually written or accepting any excuse to explain away the issues, to deny the god character in the Bible is as evil as is written; declaring there is a constant and consistent theme and purpose to scripture or a "God of the Bible"?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Except her version is really not all that watered down, its just that she, like Calvin himself, denies that there are any real inconsistencies in the theology and just ignores the logical implications. I don't personally know anyone in the Calvinistic tradition that would say that God only loves the elect. That would be full on Calvinism.
HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Calvinists know perfectly well, and so does Calvin, that God "so loved the world" etc., and that perfection is defined as being kind to both the just and the unjust, that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, including our enemies, so Calvin can't be saying that God only loves the elect. Spurgeon in contrasting His loving Jacob but hating Esau may have made it sound that way, but that must be only because he's emphasizing that context and not dealing with the concept of love as such.
The problem is that what Calvin is saying, that we are all having so much trouble with, IS biblical and yet the Bible says that God cannot sin. Logic may say something else but logic isn't our standard, the Bible is. Logical inconsistencies that contradict the Bible have to be ignored, not because there's something obviously wrong with our logic, but because they DO contradict the Bible. And this is where it is perfectly reasonable to say that this is all beyond our understanding and exit this futile argument. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
The problem is that it is Calvin's interpretation of the Bible that is logically inconsistent. So that doesn't mean that anyone is suggesting that the Bible is wrong. It is Calvin's interpretation that is wrong. Logical inconsistencies are the thing one CAN'T ignore. A married bachelor. A round square... which is a good example.
The Bible refers to the "circle of the earth" and it also refers to the "four corners of the earth." So the earth must be a round square, and both are Biblical, so we need to just ignore the logical inconsistency. But we can't ignore it can we? The earth cannot be a round square. We must be misunderstanding one or both of those passages. What we come to understand in this case is that neither passage is meant to describe the geometry of the plant earth. Instead, it describe the world in the way the ancients would have envisioned it. This is how Calvin developed his theology. He started with a premise and then describe another premise, but when he got to putting those two premises together, he waved away the fact that they were incompatible. What he is doing is starting with the wrong premise and filtering everything else through that filter. PaulK said it well that
quote: If you started with God's character as revealed through Jesus and filtered everything else through that filter, you would get a completely different picture. It's not that Calvin is 100% wrong, it's that he creates logical inconsistencies and implications about God's character that I find completely unacceptable and un-Biblical. This thread has made it ever so much clearer that Calvinism is just flat wrong. The kind of logical inconsistencies involved in Calvinism cannot be ignored. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is nothing logical or logically consistent about the concept of the Trinity but it is Biblical.
I may come back to this later, I'm getting tired.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
so Calvin can't be saying that God only loves the elect. Really Faith? Because Calvin has said that fairly explicitly. If you want to convince somebody that Calvin did not actually mean what he wrote, you know what is required.
Spurgeon in contrasting His loving Jacob but hating Esau may have made it sound that way, but that must be only because he's emphasizing that context and not dealing with the concept of love as such. Except that Spurgeon did not make it sound that way. Spurgeon pointed to actions on Esau's part as justifying God's hatred of Esau, and he further rejected any statements of repentance by Esau as insufficient or insincere. Of course he also tells us that no reason is necessary. In short, Spurgeon simply isn't relying on Calvin's argument.
Logical inconsistencies that contradict the Bible have to be ignored, not because there's something obviously wrong with our logic, but because they DO contradict the Bible. Your statement is unhelpful on two fronts. First, we are not talking about logical inconsistencies that contradict the Bible. The question is instead whether the doctrines are indeed Biblical versus being cherry picked. Second, one might well apply this kind of 'see no controversy' idea to any doctrine that can be drummed up as long as there is a Bible verse or two to support the doctrine. Find a contrary verse? Well that's true too, just ignore any inconsistency. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Except her version is really not all that watered down, its just that she, like Calvin himself, denies that there are any real inconsistencies in the theology Are there inconsistencies in Calvin's thinking? I think not. Calvin rejects apriori that human judgment is applicable to God. The issue with Calvinistic thinking is not the logical inconsistencies. Instead the issues are a) contrary verses in the Bible and b) the unflattering view Calvin paints of God when we apply our own view of what's right. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Calvinists know perfectly well, and so does Calvin, that God "so loved the world" etc., and that perfection is defined as being kind to both the just and the unjust, that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, including our enemies, so Calvin can't be saying that God only loves the elect. Yes he can. In Calvin's theology, perfection is not defined by kindness or love, but by being God. God's allowed to do things we're not allowed to do, because when he does so he's not breaking his law. So, for example, we are forbidden vengeance and told to love our enemies, but God, says Calvin, has "a vengeance which once kindled burns to the lowest hell" --- and he's perfect.
We are told to be truthful, but, says Calvin, "a spirit of error is sent from God himself" making people believe lies --- and he's perfect. God, says Calvin, has "forbidden us to turn and incline our mind to wrath, hatred, adultery, theft, and falsehood", but, says Calvin, and says it repeatedly, God himself turns and inclines our minds to wrath, hatred, adultery, theft, and falsehood --- and he's perfect. We, you say, should be kind to the unjust, but Calvin's God punishes the unjust in this life and the next with a bestial and insatiable cruelty --- and he's perfect. As Calvin remarks: "It is perverse to measure divine by the standard of human justice": what would be unspeakably evil in us is apparently a mark of perfection in God. To Calvin, the Biblical idea that "God can't sin" doesn't mean that God is constrained by anything remotely resembling morality; rather, it means that God can do what the heck he likes and it doesn't count as sinful. Now, there are one or two little problems with this aspect of Calvin's theology, which I may discuss at a later date. But that's what Calvin's theology is, and so you shouldn't try to interpret his theology as though he thought that it would be wrong for God to do what it's wrong for humans to do. Calvin thinks nothing of the sort. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
If God has deliberately arranged for everything that happened before our birth, if there is no possibility that we could go against it then God bears the primary responsibility. It does not matter how God arranges it - even if God merely employs subtle and indirect manipulation, the fact of the inescapable nature of the manipulation is sufficient. Would God be responsible if He only foreknew what we ended up doing? If we become (and became) the decisions that we make, how is God responsible simply by foreknowing? To argue that we could not have possibly done anything else than what we did does not absolve us of the responsibility for the many choices we made in life. People get upset that they can never decide to do anything without God foreknowing it---thus they are trapped. I say get over it. If you end up thinking God to be evil and a God to be opposed, you likely will do just that---and again it will be your free decision---even if God foreknew what you would end up doing. Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Because we're at risk of getting off topic here, I'll say that foreknowledge alone carries no responsibility. A completely passive observer who has done nothing to produce the situation, nor has any power to affect the outcome has no responsibility.
If you require further discussion please take it to a new thread. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Would God be responsible if He only foreknew what we ended up doing? If we become (and became) the decisions that we make, how is God responsible simply by foreknowing? There is another open thread in which both Calvinism and Arminianism are on topic. You might raise your question there. But I think it is clear that the analysis is quite different.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Instead the issues are a) contrary verses in the Bible Well, that's actually the inconsistency. It's not so much that he ignores contradictory verses, it is that they need to be compartmentalized. God IS love. God creates people to be evil and then punishes them. Man has no real choice as to his actions. God only loves the elect and hates the reprobate. Each of these is said to be true, but you can't think about them all at once.
Calvin rejects apriori that human judgment is applicable to God... the unflattering view Calvin paints of God when we apply our own view of what's right. This is a fair observation and criticism and certainly there are things about God to which we can never make sense of using human logic and judgement. But we CAN apply human logic and judgement to Calvin's theology, which is a human construct - a human system to explain God. Despite Faith's insistence that Calvin IS absolutely Biblical, theology is, at it's core, a human system. The reason for the problems in Calvin's theology is the premise he starts with. He stresses God's power and sovereignty at the expense of his other qualities. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
HBD writes: NN writes: Calvin rejects apriori that human judgment is applicable to God... the unflattering view Calvin paints of God when we apply our own view of what's right. This is a fair observation and criticism and certainly there are things about God to which we can never make sense of using human logic and judgement. But we CAN apply human logic and judgement to Calvin's theology, which is a human construct - a human system to explain God. Despite Faith's insistence that Calvin IS absolutely Biblical, theology is, at it's core, a human system. But that position also rejects the direct teachings of the Bible that mankind has the same ability to judge morality as does God. That is shown by direct statement in Genesis 3 and demonstrated by the dialog found in Genesis 18:
quote: So when Calvin claims that humans cannot understand or judge God's behavior in the area of morality then at best he is being willfully ignorant of what the Bible actually says.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm not sure that that dialog proves what you want it to, though. Presumably God already knows that there aren't fifty, or forty-five, or even ten good men in Sodom: so Abraham may think that he's negotiating with God and extracting concessions from him, but he isn't.
But maybe I'm missing your point.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024