Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?

That's great advice Faith. In fact it turns out to be exactly the point of what I said in my complaint about your citing of God's hatred for Esau.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In any event, here is Spurgeon's take on it.The Spurgeon Library | Page not foundAfter going through a bunch of Calvinist doctrine and slicing up some Arminianism, Spurgeon claims that Esau earned God's enmity by selling his birthright to Jacob. Yet Spurgeon never gets around to the point of including the Calvinist doctrine that requires that God authored the whole birthright selling.

You did not actually say very much. Right. No mention of Calvin at all. You are confused. Spurgeon does not mention here Calvin at all. So how could this particular sermon tell you what he thinks Calvin is claiming? Perhaps Spurgeon simply places the Bible ahead of whatever Calvin might think.

quote:

---

But if you are saved, it cannot be by your merits, it must be by gracefree, sovereign grace. The gospel is preached to you; it is this: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

---

For Calvin, this would be nearly practically a doctrine of works. Because to Calvin, man is too corrupt to make any move towards God. Spurgeon is apparently Calvin lite. Perhaps all modern "Calvinists" are such.The Spurgeon Library | Page not found

quote:

---

but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views.

---

"I do in the main hold them"Not exactly a ringing endorsement for five point Calvinism.

quote:

---

nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus.

---

So there is no such thing as 'back sliding'? Do you agree with this? Is this even Biblical?

It's not hard to see why they would reject such a characterization. That particular formulation expresses the concept we are discussing in what must be the among the most off putting, provocative way possible. I expect Calvinists to deny such.But predestination, unconditional election, and total depravity really don't leave much room for humans to bear any responsibility for their own fate. If humans are inherently unworthy, blaming a man for his condition is like blaming gun powder for being explosive.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

All of the Bible stories are subject to interpretation. In particular, this story is nothing like a first hand account of a conversation between God and Abraham. I don't find either your interpretation or that of Dr. Adequate to be all that improbable. That's a fairly strange thing to say given that you brought the story up in order to refute a Calvinistic view point in a thread about that theology. Surely a counter proposal is at least relevant.

It does do that. But in my view arguments that a theology contradicts the literalist view is not enough because I don't believe the literalist interpretation is correct.It would be hypocrisy for me to attack Calvin with an issue that turns on a tight literalist reading, and then to defend my own interpretation (even on a different matter) by departing from literal inerrancy.And, in my view, it is unnecessary to do so. Everyone agrees on the interpretation of Bible verses that are claimed to contradict what Calvin says. What's left to argue about is what Calvin actually said and what that means, and perhaps the validity of some lame excuses about why we ought not to delve to deeply into thinking about the implications.And of course, that ought to leave little enough in dispute, because Calvin expounded on his doctrines at some length. And well the point of debating about what Calvin says is to explore it in some depth.I accept that doctrine can be useful in some areas despite being an unusable approximation in other areas. I don't agree that Calvinism is the least bit useful. Maybe not. But I think we can objectively to judge the theology Calvin describes.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And what is that great defense?

quote:

---

God CAN'T be arbitrary or whimsical. Everything He does follows law, in a sense He IS Law Himself. Some have said that. The moral law operates inexorably without a moment's ceasing because there is a sense in which it is God Himself.

---

Yes. In short, the same old assertion that God is beyond questioning, so by definition, what a Calvinist decides that God does must be moral.Are the Calvinists right? I would say not. And if not then does not the entire argument fall apart? If Calvinists have the wrong view then one can attack their view without attacking God.