Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?

Calvin said what he said and even you seem unable to read his words in ways that reproduce theology that you can agree with. All you are managing to do here by deifying Calvin is to cast doubt on all of the preachers you've cited in other arguments.Calvin believed in predestination, limited atonement, and conditional election. No question or doubt can exists about any of that. Many Christians consider those doctrines to have abhorrent aspects. I certainly do. Apparently you do too.If you stick to worshiping Jesus rather than Lebron James or Calvin or Luther you'll stop being disappointed in your heroes.

That's a fantastic idea, Faith.

'Makes God weak' is Calvinist speak for believing in a God who fails to micromanage all of man's history to the point of deciding whether you end up in heaven or hell before your grandmother was even conceived.

Perhaps you are a Calvinist. In that you case, perhaps you should read more about the doctrine to find out what it is you've bought into. In the meantime, I'm having a pretty good laugh watching you deny stuff that professed Calvinists whole-heartedly embrace. It appears that I'm not alone.And there is no real reason or force to adopt Calvinism or Arminianism if those doctrines have flaws. If they are only approximations ("it's more Biblical") to scripture, then all of the non-scriptural portions ought to be abandoned. If God were just a powerful human, perhaps He would be concerned about His Mercy and long suffering being taken for weakness by mere mortals. But (John 3:16, 10:9, 5:39-40, Luke 18:16) apparently He's bigger than you and I.For those of us who are parents, we can know that there is nothing particularly weak about preparing our children to make their own choices. The idea that God granting man free will and still being able to accomplish anything God wants represents some kind of weakness is something I find laughable. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

How can you reconcile these two statements? Do you believe that God is weak?

I'm sorry, but you've lost me. Which statement of the two embodies Hypercalvinism? Your own statement quoted from another forum relating to the pray away the gay preacher. Or the purported criticism of Arminianism. If it is the latter, then what is your actual beef with Arminianism? Calvin himself, if you are to be believed, was a hyper-Calvinist because he believed in total depravity and unconditional election; a doctrine which is easily demonstrated to be non-scriptural. A theology no one should live by. How useful is that? And according to Calvin, there is not diddly squat a human can do. Well, given that we are instructed by scripture to do otherwise, so who needs Calvinism.

Your link also points to a bunch of preachers who have very negative views of Calvinism. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

For people who aren't looking at 'Big Names' as a meaningful indicator, the quality of the arguments and their relation to scripture might be worth considering. There are lots of ways to become a 'Big Name' in theology.The problem some of us are having with this particular argument is that it is simply an appeal to which authority is most popular. You are not actually able to discuss the arguments in any level of detail. Arguments about what person X or person Y believes are only secondary indicators of what is correct. And such arguments are totally unnecessary because we have the actual scripture and the doctrines available.What I find the most telling about Calvinism is the need to explain away the implications of its doctrines (total depravity and unconditional election) when it comes time to actually live and act as a Christian. Then Calvinism is seen for what it actually is... an impediment to living as Christ taught.

Really?Nothing those guys have to say is more relevant than what a good neighborhood church pastor says on a weekly basis. Ninety nine percent of the stuff on which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminianists disagree is of zero consequence. And as far as the essential stuff, their disagreements are pretty much microscopic.

This exchange is literally he said, she said. What kind of argument is that?

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.

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.

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 an argument this one is particularly pathetic. If God has hatred for Esau, we know quite well how that enmity was generated, and we have a story about Esau that is completely consistent with man having free will. If instead we saw that Esau was hated from the beginning of time, you might have some scriptural evidence.Remember also that nobody is arguing that all people will be saved only that their own volition plays a role. Esau and his mom surely earned some enmity.Finally you use this argument to rebut direct words quoting God saying that he offers salvation to all, and then try to tell us that the particularly quote is written from human perspective. What part of the Bible isn't written that way? Just the parts you say in order to define Hyper-Calvinism?Seriously, Faith. You aren't any better at reading the Bible than you are at reading rocks.

This is just a personal understanding, but it is not the foreknowledge that bothers me. It is instead the predetermination. Foreknowledge without predetermination is just that same kind of twisted, Gordian knot tying, logic bending paradox that shows up in bad time travel stories. I can accept that it is possible to have foreknowledge without guilt. The only alternative I can see to that position (at least for an omnipotent being) is to totally remove our free will.On the other hand, Calvinists explicitly reject mere foreknowledge as weak Arminianism. They insist, despite John 3:16 and all other evidence to the contrary that God has already elected those to be saved and those to suffer eternally and that for most there is no opportunity for salvation.