Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?

quote:

---

He's saying he's answered it, that it doesn't work to explain it in terms of the "hidden and incomprehensible" cause of God's predestination. He doesn't say he hasn't or others haven't thought about it or that we shouldn't, he just says he's thought about it and that explanation doesn't work. It doesn't make sense to think he said anything remotely like "don't think about" something.

---

I read it differently - in fact I think that is the whole point of saying that we can't understand predestination. Which is not really true in any relevant sense. All we need to know is whether God bears primary responsibility for the sins or not. And Calvin's view of Sovereignty clearly says yes.

quote:

---

Yes, it limits God too much if you go all the way over to the Arminian view. But we could say there is scriptural support for both points of view in a sense. There is plenty of support for Calvin's, some of which I've posted. We have to say we do act against God's will while at the same time we can do nothing and nothing happens without God. Both are true, and I think Calvin says as much.

---

No, Calvin clearly says that God even COMMANDS sinful actions. The two views are logically contradictory. It is not possible that God wills an action that is against his will.

quote:

---

If we were always in God's will we wouldn't have to pray "Thy will be done" because we'd know it's always being done, but in this sense it isn't, we are at enmity with God, we oppose His will by nature. Calvin could not possibly have overlooked this. He may not have resolved the seeming conflict well enough -- I don't know, maybe he did somewhere -- but he couldn't possibly have ignored it.

---

I'm sure that Calvin would say that God's will is always done, regardless of our desires.

If God doesn't cause sin, how did he engineer the Fall. Isn't that scripturally due to the sin of Adam ?

Then you obviously don't understand Calvin's thinking at all. Just from quotes presented here.:The wickedness that motivated the Fall did not come from creation. It was however intentionally arranged by God. And everything done - including every sinful action - is ordained by God. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

And I missed it ! OK where did you prove that Calvin was lying about his own beliefs ?

quote:

---

That's been answered. God GOVERNS, does not originate our fallen ideas

---

If everything done is ordained by God that must include all our actions. But if our ideas could influence our actions independently of God that would not be true. And of course, according to Calvin that we have fallen ideas is God's fault anyway.

quote:

---

Calvin says God directed the occurrence of the Fall, he doesn't say God put the ideas in our heads

---

That doesn't answer my argument, and this seems to confirm what I said.

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)

quote:

---

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.

---

For all intents and purposes they have NO choice at all. And even if they had, they do not choose Hell.

quote:

---

The ultimate answer to you is that Calvin is Biblical so that criticizing him is criticizing the Bible.

---

Of course that isn't really true, is it ? You didn't answer either of the scriptures I quoted.

quote:

---

I found a site that lists biblical references for each of the TULIP points but I can't get the thing to load. However,

---

Simply quoting verses that support (or allegedly support) the TULIP points amounts to cherry-picking. You need to deal with the rest, too.So, try these again: (Genesis 6:6)How can God be so upset, to the point of wishing that he had never made humans, if everything is going according to his plan ? He made things turn out this way ?
(John 3:16)Loving only the Elect - a tiny proportion - isn't loving the world. And if only the Elect can believe in Christ that's a pretty hollow offer.And this: (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

quote:

---

You are always accusing me, in this case of not telling the truth, and I'm sorry I just don't read a lot of your stuff for that reason. It's depressing and false.

---

You may find it depressing, but if you've chosen to remain ignorant of the scriptural objections to Calvinism that's your problem, not mine.

quote:

---

I have no problem with God's expressing regret at creating humanity, no idea why you or anyone should, it's the appropriate response to His creation turning against Him.

---

Obviously it would NOT be appropriate if God intentionally and knowingly arranged it. And according to Calvinism that is exactly how it happened.

quote:

---

It's just the typical hypercalvinism to say that "everything is going according to his plan" instead of taking it on the level of experienced reality.

---

Of course we are talking about God's perspective, not ours. And if in God's view his creation genuinely rebelled against him - contrary to his will - then either God is wrong or Calvinism is.

quote:

---

Funny anyone would think that Calvin and Calvinists just kind of manage not to notice such things in the Bible. Calvinism is hard to understand for some people.

---

Since you're essentially arguing that even God doesn't believe in his own sovereignty I'd say that it is you that has problems understanding Calvinism.

quote:

---

Now you raise scriptures that are from the level of our experience but ignore the higher level, God's expressions of love and desire that all be saved. All that is true

---

If God genuinely desired that all be saved, why aren't they ? Unconditional Election tells us that God can do it. Non-Calvinists may place the blame on humans but Calvinists cannot.

quote:

---

However, loving the world doesn't imply that He loves all individuals, in the light of Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. You do have to take all the scriptures into account.

---

But we have to reconcile God's love of the world with far more than just taking a dislike to some individuals. According to Calvin God deliberately corrupted the world, resulting in the damnation of the vast majority of humans as well as much suffering for people and animals in this life. Romans 8:22Would someone who loved the world do that ?

But Faith isn't the problem that you DON'T understand how they work together ? You've yet to provide any satisfactory answer to the scriptures cited against it.Of course the real answer is that they don't fully work together. That's why it is impossible to produce a coherent view of God based on assuming inerrancy. The Bible is a human work and the view of God it gives is a human view, conditioned by the culture and beliefs of the authors - and sometimes, even, the needs of the stories being told.

First, I should state that Calvinism is not truly Biblical. That is, it relies on a selective view of scripture and dismisses the contrary verses on the assumption that if some verses support Calvinism none can contradict it - that the Bible presents a unified and coherent view of God. But this is neither stated by the Bible, nor true of the Bible. It is not following the Bible, it is a rejection of the actual Bible in favour of an imaginary Bible that follows human doctrine.Predestination is difficult in one area - what should we do about it. And accusations of hyper-Calvinism against some extreme views on that count may well be justified.In another area, however, it is simple. 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. Consider the laws on entrapment - and that human attempts at entrapment are never perfect and absolutely inescapable.Calvin's view that God is directly responsible for the Fall brings out the problem very clearly. Even if we are corrupt and miserable beings it is because God chose that we should be.And if God bears primary responsible then God must bear a greater share of the guilt, and deserves a greater share of the punishment. Even claiming that God is the judge is to no avail, since a judge who excuses himself from punishment is corrupt. The idea of Hell as infinite torment - already unjust for finite offences - is rendered even more clearly unjust.If we have free will to act against God's will, there is at least some possibility of justice in punishment for such violations. But if we do not then what could we be punished for ? Failing to go against God's will ? Surely that's absurd. For the natures God gave us, that we should be his tools ? How can that deserve punishment ?No, Calvinism exalts God's power, at the expense of God's character. And the appeals to a lack of understanding are just obfuscation. There is no difficulty here.

...except that any "fuck-ups" are intentional

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.

Faiths argument is better in that it isn’t an incoherent rant.But it’s not a rational argument it’s just dishonest assertion.Faith asserts that the position attributed to Calvin must be wrong, therefore Calvin can’t have meant what he apparently said. She nowhere shows that Calvin really agreed with her or that the quotes in any way misrepresent what Calvin said.Faith further makes claims about Dr Adequate,s position which certainly have no basis in the quoted material.So it’s just the usual lying.