Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?

quote:

---

I meant it made no difference in the sense of what actually happened, since it could have been said that he hardened his own heart, which I believe it does say in another passage, but in this case it said God hardened his heart, so that we will understand the sovereignty of God that is Calvin's particular concern to elucidate.

---

As I recall it only says the the Pharaoh hardened his own heart on one occasion, not every time that God claimed to have done it. And to say that God says so just to prove Calvin right is silly.

quote:

---

That's a misunderstanding. If NOTHING happens without God's intervention, which is the point of mentioning it, then EVERYTHING that happens is the "natural" effect

---

No, that's the obvious sensible meaning. And certainly the point is not to claim that God controls everything. And if God's intervention is required then there is no "natural effect". By definition, if it was natural it would happen without external intervention.

quote:

---

Either way Pharoah's heart was hardened. BOTH are true, really: he hardened his own heart and God hardened it. That's the picture of reality I think we are supposed to take from such a revelation. The connection between God and His Creation is that intimate is the point. I can't raise my hand without God's raising it.

---

Of course you have yet to actually find this "revelation" in the actual text...

quote:

---

The point of the plagues WAS to demonstrate His power,

---

Exactly. God is the sort of being to create a pretext to show off how powerful he is, by inflicting death and suffering. That's how "good" he is.

Remember that Pharoah had ordered the slaughter of the firstborn of the Israelites.

Read the Bible Faith and you will find that nothing in that assertion of yours is true.Neither Adam or Eve died spiritually or lost contact with God.You gotta stop making shit up and misrepresenting what the Bible says.

Here's a page that explains how the ten plagues were judgment on the deities of Egypt such as Apis, the god of the Nile, Heget the frog-headed goddess of birth, and so on.

As a result of their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve died spiritually and were separated from God

From Message 70Faith, Wesley and Arminius knew the Bible thoroughly as well, and they say that many of Calvin's doctrines are not scriptural.From Message 63
(bold mine)Can't you see how contradictory this is? Man was part of God's creation and so was made very good. We cannot then, according to Calvin, think that wickedness came from man, since he was made "very good" by God. Yet Calvin goes on to say that man was corrupted by his own evil intention. Where did the evil corruption come from except that it was created in him? (at least according to Calvin) Whether Calvin is right in his theology is unrelated to Biblical inerrancy. The Bible can be inerrant and Calvin be totally wrong. Your claim here suggests that Calvin is also infallible. Our job is not to rationalize what Calvin said, but to determine if what he said is right. It's one thing to start with the Bible being inerrant, a completely different thing to say that a particular interpretation is inerrant.From Message 83
A "weak and ineffectual God?" How so? A God that does not manipulate every single thing that happens is not necessarily weak. A God that is sovereign, loving, just and kind IS limited by those very qualities. That in no way makes him weak. I heard an anecdote about an Amish child playing underneath a Belgium draft horse. The Belgium's hoof was as big around as the child's head. One misstep and the horse could have smashed that child's head, but it stood there stock still, restrained, gentle. The child's parents were unconcerned (I would have freaked) because apparently they had confidence in the gentleness of that horse. Does that make the horse weak and ineffectual? No, certainly not! That's my image of God - powerful beyond our imagination, but who willingly restrains himself. In Calvin's theology, the horse allows one child to play safely and smashes the head of another child.From Message 102
Are you now acknowledging that God does not have absolute control over everything? That there is error in the universe that is outside of God's control? Because if you ascribe anomalies in nature to "some kind of error," then you depart from Calvin's theology. But earlier you claim that there is no way that Calvin's doctrine contradicts scripture. No, Faith, no one is saying that God DOES make whimsical choices, they are saying that it is the theology of Calvin that presents God as whimsical and maniacal. If your position was that Calvin was basically right, but took his ideas to the extreme, or simply that you believe Calvin got it pretty much right; there probably would not be much argument. But, as usual, that cannot be your position - it has to be all or nothing with you. Calvin has to be right because the Bible is inerrant. Calvin is right because you agree with him.Calvin was an extremist; again, a demonstration of my point that the Reformation was a reactionary movement. Its not that he didn't serve an important place in the development of modern Protestant doctrine; indeed, he was very much a central player in that. But that doesn't mean he was infallible. He was wrong on many things - wrong because he was reacting, and over-compensating to Catholic errors.From Message 95It is actually Calvin who fails to take all those qualities into account and reconcile them with one another. A loving God does not create humans so that he can condemn them to eternal torment. A merciful God extends his mercy to ALL people, not just a select, chosen few. Future theologians (e.g. Wesley) recognized this and amended theology to better account for and to better explain his attributes. Calvin did not have it all figured out. Truth be told, we are still learning about God's character today, still adjusting theology to better explain who God is. That's not a bad thing. As you properly point out, understanding God is a difficult thing. It is not something that one person figured out hundreds of years ago, but something that we need to constantly strive to understand.HBD

Tit for tat? Is that how you suggest God operates?HBD

Sorry Faith but none of that is in the stories found in Genesis 2&3 or even 4.Stop reading what the Carny Barkers tell you and actually read what is in the Bible Stories.

A weak and ineffectual God means, for instance, that if He had nothing to do with the attack on the twin towers then the evil minds who planned it had all the power, and especially it means that God had no power to stop it, so evil events are completely up to the will of the evil minds that concoct them. This is always the case when you deny God's role in bad events, Satan or evil people are then depicted as having more power than God.

Not exactly, was answering PaulK who seemed to be depicting the Egyptians as innocent victims..

quote:

---

Remember that Pharoah had ordered the slaughter of the firstborn of the Israelites.

---

That was a different Pharaoh. And besides that doesn't change the point that God was making the Pharoah refuse to release the Israelites as a pretext for sending the plagues.

The classical problem with Arminianism is the idea that God merely foresees who is going to be saved rather than predestining or foreordaining us. Supposedly He looks down the corridors of time and sees that so and so is going to believe the gospel and have faith in Christ. This is a total contradiction with scripture which tells us that we are saved by God's grace alone and not by anything we ourselves can do, can't believe the gospel, can't have faith, those are gifts of grace. Belief and faith become works in the Arminian system.That's the second problem, the first being, again, that evil has no restraint unless God is willing all events, the devil and people with evil motives being more powerful than God.While I'm at it I'll mention the Calvinist principle of Limited Atonement, meaning that Christ's death saves only the Elect, whereas Arminians say it is good for all people. The Calvinist reason for this idea is that the Lord's death and resurrection are EFFECTUAL, that is they do in fact save us, and if they were for the entire world the entire world would be saved but we know they aren't.
\

Pharoah represents the Egyptians, it doesn't matter which one did what. When a nation comes under God's judgment it may be centuries since the origin of the offenses that bring about the judgment. Over four hundred years until He judged the Canaanites, and hundreds from the beginning of the prophecies of the judgment of Israel until it happened.God is good, God is sovereign.He gives you the evidence everybody is always wanting, He proves He's God and then you treat Him like dirt for it.

quote:

---

Pharoah represents the Egyptians, it doesn't matter which one did what.

---

I think it's worth getting the facts right.

quote:

---

When a nation comes under God's judgment it may be centuries since the origin of the offenses that bring about the judgment.

---

It's obviously unjust to punish people for events that occurred before they were born. And there's nothing to suggest that the Egyptians went in killing Israelite babies.

quote:

---

He gives you the evidence everybody is always wanting, He proves He's God and then you treat Him like dirt for it.

---

That's completely untrue. God hasn't supplied the evidence, and it's you and Calvin and the Bible that are portraying God as cruel and unjust. It's not me treating God "like dirt".

From Message 114Wrong. There is nothing that says God had no power to stop anything. There is also nothing that says that God had NOTHING to do with the attacks. We can see God's providence in tragic events such as the Twin Towers. Where you are wrong in your thinking is that you make evil out to some "thing." As if there is a power or force of evil. Evil is like dark or cold, which are the absence of light and heat respectively. Evil is the absence of good. Humans that reject God's goodness practice evil (ie. live in darkness). We can recognize it, just like we recognize dark and cold, but there is no force of evil. God has the power to stop evil, but humans reject the good.The Twin Towers need not be viewed as God's judgement. Remember, Jesus said he came not to judge the world. The time of judgement is over (ultimate judgement is yet to come). God still restrains evil by continuing to input his goodness into the world. That goodness comes in different forms, such as the First Responders who heroically sacrificed their own safety to save others; causing the towers to fall straight down; etc. There is no need to charge God with causing this evil event in order to defend his sovereignty.Could not that event simply be a consequence of people rejecting God's goodness? From many angles such as bad US policy towards the Middle East, radical religious zealots, the Towers being a symbolism of Western Capitalism. Why charge God with evil? Wrong. There is no contradiction. We have a choice. We can choose to accept God's grace or reject it. We cannot EARN our way into God's favor, yes, but we still have a choice. Your understanding of "by grace alone" carries the meaning too far. Again, evil is not a thing. Evil is restrained simply by God being good. God doesn't restrain evil by willing just a little bit of evil. He restrains it by interjecting his goodness; sometimes through events and "coincidences", but usually through people who are willing to do good. In otherwords, God can even use an atheist to do good (gasp!). Christ died once for ALL. Everyone. Period. Universal Atonement. Limited Atonement makes his death INEFFECTUAL for those who are not the "elect." What kind of death is that? He only died for those he loves? or those that love him? Did he not die for sinners? for his enemies?But yes, in order for his death to BE effectual it must be accepted by the individual. The point of salvation is it enables us to live a new life. If you reject salvation, how could one still live a new life (in Christ, that is)?"For God so loved the world...", Faith. Not the elect only, not just those he chose ahead of time, the whole world. How do you reconcile that with limited atonement? Calvinistic predestination is conceited pride. Those of us who have chosen to accept his grace are not "better" than those who reject him. He loves the lowest of the low as much as he loves the "elect." How can you make any less of it?HBD