Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?

I suppose you have actual evidence that the Pope taught pagan superstitions?Do you know what the liturgy is?Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

If you don't trust yourself to understand the Bible (or Calvin), how can you trust yourself to choose the "best commentators"? You seem to be inviting an infinite regression of commentaries on commentaries on commentaries on commentaries. No wonder you're so out of touch with what the Bible actually says.

You are missing the point. It's not that I don't "trust myself" to understand the Bible or Calvin, I understand most of both without help. But there are places where both are difficult and raise questions. Commentators may address those questions. I can certainly understand when an explanation makes sense, and if two or three share that same view so much the better. Excuse me, but I would think you should have known this is what I meant, not some far out notion about how I don't "trust myself." But oh well.But Lone Ranger Bible readers allow themselves to take passages and apply them to themselves, take them out of context. I've met people who have come up with the strangest ideas about Bible readings because they insist that they and only they can understand it for themselves and that it's somehow wrong to consult commentaries. JAR has a version of this disease. And with Calvin, the Arminians just manage to make hash out of him.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure, go read all the Protestant Reformers.Yes the liturgy is the gospels. It's the only teaching of the Bible Catholics may get, certainly in the past and in most other countries than the US, and they are very fortunate if they take all their understanding from that and ignore everything else the RCC teaches.

Oh I'm sure you are quite capable of pointing it out yourself instead of relying on others, and of insulting me directly too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks for clarifying. Yet you clearly don't understand a metaphor when you see it - e.g. a talking snake. I agree that self-education can be a dangerous thing - for example when opining on science which you don't have the first clue about. I also agree that consensus is more likely to be correct than individual opinions (note that there is no consensus among creationists about anything).

Yes, that is true. Most who hold to the Calvinistic position don't take it to the extreme that is being presented here. However, you can clearly read for yourself what Calvin actual wrote. It is really the implications of his doctrines that create the problems, IMO. Most Calvinists side step these issues by what amounts to nothing more than hand-waving it away. The rest simply fail to recognize the implications.The most significant issue at stake in this debate of Calvinism vs Arminianism (or more appropriately IMO, Wesleyan - who improved/corrected Arminian errors) is the issue of limited atonement. To take Calvin literally and wholly, requires that God created, or brought into existence, the vast majority of human-kind (maybe as much as 99%) for the sole purpose or with the intent of condemning them to hell. There are plenty of ways to hand-wave that away; "God's ways are not our ways," "We trust in God's justice and mercy," "Don't try to figure out the secret ways of God." One one level, I can agree with those statements, but they are not very satisfying in response to the problems associated with limited atonement.How can one reconcile a God of love and mercy, a God who desires that ALL people come to repentance, with Calvin's teachings on limited atonement? God has full control over people's wills correct? God brings to repentance those he wishes to call, right? No one whom God calls can resist his call, true? Those are Calvin's doctrines. Well, if he really desires that ALL come to repentance, then why would he not simply call everyone? None could resist. He would achieve his will of ALL people coming to repentance. No would have to perish, but all could benefit from his love and mercy. But instead he chooses to withhold salvation from the vast majority of the people that ever lived. He chooses to deny hope to billions and billions of human souls who have absolutely no chance to gain salvation because God did not will it so.Most Calvinists recognize this conundrum and so they accept that God wants all to come to repentance; and they acknowledge that humans can resist God's call; and they put the failing solely on man's free will rather than on God's lack of mercy; and that God simply knew ahead of time who would accept - but that diminishes his control over the situation. But these are all Arminian answers to the problems inherent in Calvin's doctrines. I think it was Dr. A who stated that if one wants to accept Arminian doctrines, one should just be an Arminian. Honestly, I don't have time to read through that pamphlet right now, but it is not a historical treatment of the controversy. It is simply propaganda. Now, in case you think that I think that propaganda means "false," I don't. Propaganda is material presented to convince the reader of a particular point of view, usually by presenting selected facts and a loaded message. I only had to read the first couple paragraphs to realize this:

quote:

---

... These doctrines are a perversion of the Truth of God and the way of salvation. They have no scriptural foundation. They were never taught by the prophets of the Old Testament Church, nor by the apostles of the Lamb in the New. Basically they are a revival of the ancient semi-Pelagian heresy condemned by the Church of God. ... Arminianism appears as the gospel of Christ, but in reality is 'another gospel.' It is a heresy, deadly and soul-ruining, and all the more so because subtle, plausible, and popular. "It is a scheme," in the words of Dr. Cunningham, the renowned theologian, "for dividing or partitioning the salvation of sinners between God and sinners themselves, instead of ascribing it as the Bible does, to the sovereign grace of God, the perfect and all-sufficient work of Christ, and the efficacious and omnipotent operation of the Holy Spirit."... Arminianism is the very essence of Popery.

---

Not exactly a fair and honest treatment of the issues, is it?HBD

I guess I can wait forever at EvC for someone to be fair about my views. You clearly don't understand that the talking snake is not a metaphor but actually occurred in reality, probably by being possessed by Satan since we know that Satan is identified with the serpent elsewhere in scripture.. ALL science? No, you mean creationist speculations, period, which you don't find convincing although they aren't unscientific in themselves. It would be nice if you would try to be fair about these things but I understand how very hard it is for those who identify with the Establishment status quo to be fair to opponents. We are supposed to be discussing Calvin and related issues, but you apparently feel some need to take a swipe at creationism though it's off topic here? Must have run out of insulting things to say on the topic. Anyway, at EvC the Creationists are a motley crew and we do hardly ever agree on anything. But the Creationist ministries do share a consensus on most of the main points.

The Liturgy is not just the Gospels.But again, do you have any evidence that the Pope taught pagan superstitions?What Protestants carny salesman may say is nothing but unsupported assertions.Remember, I am a Protestant.

Have we met? I've taken enough anti-establishment positions on this site for you to know better than that. I was just pointing out that your inability to understand science is similar to your inability to understand the Bible and your inability to understand Calvin. It appears to be a systematic problem in the way you think. The details of what you think are not particularly relevant when you use such a poor method to get there.

I'm glad you agree that the discussion here is mostly of hypercalvinism.But as I've said, I'm not going to read Calvin again, and I do trust the commentators, and the pamphlet seems very useful to me. I got stuck at a point in it but hope to get back to it. Seems to me the problems you find in Limited Atonement are also in Unconditional Election, or maybe more so. All Limited Atonement is really saying is that those who are saved were atoned for and nobody else. But it doesn't limit who is saved. For that matter, neither does Unconditional Election, it just says that those who are saved were chosen, it doesn't say who or how many those are. Or more to the point, perhaps, neither idea prevents anyone who wants to be saved from seeking and finding it.I think the main answer Calvinists give to your charges is that it's sin that takes people to Hell, not God. Yes I know the answer to that, He directs everything. But it's still the answer. We're accountable for our own sin and it is sin that condemns us. Election saves some from their sin, Limited Atonement pays for the sin, but neither election nor limited atonement condemn anybody, the sin does that.And where has God ever turned anyone away who wanted salvation? Seems to me that all this complaining about how God predestined people not to be saved misses the whole point that anyone who desires it can seek it and find it. The people at EvC who are most loudly complaining about this don't have the slightest interest in being saved so what are they complaining about?However, again, all this comes down to which views represent the Bible best. All Calvin is trying to do is expand on what the Bible says. You apparently believe Arminianism has just as much Bible support. That pamphlet says not, but in any case that's where the discussion should focus, don't you think? If Calvin's views can be shown to derive from the Bible then all this complaining about Calvin is really complaining about the Bible.All I meant by calling it "historical" by the way is that it doesn't get into the debate issues. I was wrong about that it turns out, but nevertheless the point was that it discusses the formation of the concepts -- certainly from the Calvinist point of view --, that's all I meant about its being "historical," not that it's some kind of History of the whole controversy. It's a presentation of Calvinism, perhaps I should have left it at that.

I don't have an inability to understand science, the Bible or Calvinism. But obviously you do,.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I agree, which is why I prefer the ideas of general atonement and conditional election. That's not the issue. I never said that God turning away those who desire to be saved was the problem. The problem is that it is God's will that makes them NOT want to be saved. If God desires all people to come to repentance, but some do not, then those that choose not to must do so out of their own free will. Otherwise, it is God who wills them to NOT want to be saved and he really doesn't desire all people to be saved. That problem is not there with conditional election. What is it that makes us accountable for our own sin? Our free will to reject or accept God's will? Calvin's position is that free will is illusionary and we do nothing except God wills it. But not if God doesn't will you to seek it. If we have no free will to act independently of God, then we have no choice in the desire to seek it. If you are not one who God has chosen to seek and find it, then you have no hope to ever find it. How do you reconcile a God who says that he wants everyone to find it but then gives so many people no hope of finding it. Wesleyan. And yes I do. Part of it lies in rationality as well. Its not just quote verses that support ones particular point of view, but the need to make sense of it all. But that is exactly what I try to do, decide what view fits the Bible the best. And I will say this again, I don't think ANY theological system is perfect. I think every one of them has flaws - and probably major flaws as well. All we can do is try to make the best of it. Have you tried reading something from the other side? Not something written ABOUT the other side, but FROM the other side? PREDESTINATION CALMLY CONSIDERED. By John Wesley

quote:

---

I am verily persuaded, that, in the uprightness of your hearts, you defend
the decree of unconditional election; even in the same uprightness wherein
you reject and abhor that of unconditional reprobation. But consider, I
intreat you, whether you are consistent with yourselves; consider,
whether this election can be separate from reprobation; whether one of
them does not imply the other, so that, in holding one, you must hold
both.

---

quote:

---

Go now and find out how to split
the hair between thy being reprobated and not elected; how to separate
reprobation, in its most effectual sense, from unconditional election!
Acknowledge then that you hold reprobation. Avow it in the face of
the sun. To be consistent with yourself, you must openly assert, that
without reprobation this election cannot stand. You know it cannot.

---

quote:

---

But perhaps you will say, These ought to be limited and explained by
other passages of Scripture; wherein this doctrine is as clearly affirmed, as
it is denied in these. I must answer very plain: If this were true, we must
give up all the Scriptures together; ... But it is not
true... God declares in his word these three things, and that
explicitly, in so many terms:
(1.) Christ died for all, (2 Corinthians 5:14,) namely, all that were
dead in sin, as the words immediately following, fix the sense: Here
is the fact affirmed.
(2.) He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, (1 John
2:2,) even of all those for whom he died: Here is the consequence
of his dying for all. And,
(3.) He died for all, that they should not live unto themselves, but
unto Him which died for them, (2 Corinthians 5:15,) that they
might be saved from their sins: Here is the design, the end of his
dying for them.
Now, show me the scriptures wherein God declares in equally express
terms,
(1.)Christ did not die for all, but for some only.
(2.)Christ is not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world;
and,
(3.)He did not die for all, at least, not with that intent, that they
should live unto him who died for them. Show me, I say, the
scriptures that affirm these three things in equally express terms.
You know there are none.

---

quote:

---

Our blessed Lord does indisputably command and invite all men
everywhere to repent. He calleth all. He sends his ambassadors, in his
name, to preach the gospel to every creature. He himself preached
deliverance to the captives, without any hint of restriction or limitation.
But now, in what manner do you represent him, while he is employed in
this work? You suppose him to be standing at the prison-doors, having the
keys thereof in his hands, and to be continually inviting the prisoners to
come forth, commanding them to accept of that invitation, urging every
motive which can possibly induce them to, comply with that command;
adding the most precious promises, if they obey, the most dreadful
threatenings, if they obey not; and all this time you suppose him to be
unalterably determined in himself never to open the doors for them!

---

There, a great preacher and theologian agrees with me as well. HBD

I'm not convinced that the consensus of Protestant teachers is Calvinist. But let's leave that for now. So, the Westminster Confession, then? If I want to know what God thinks, I should find out what Calvin thinks, and if I want to know what Calvin thinks, I should read the Westminster Confession ... and I don't then need a fourth person or body of people to interpret the Westminster Confession for me? I can take that straight?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Go with the Westminster Confession.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.