Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?

The view of Calvinism that you all have here is false, mostly "Hypercalvinism." As I said, I don't have the knowledge to argue it effectively, but the preachers I've recommended are all on the same page about it.The pamphlet I also linked, Arminianism -- Another Gospel, presents a clear picture of the basic teaching.

So what John Calvin wrote is wrong and not Calvinism.Got it.Kinda like what is actually written in the Bible is not what the Bible says.Got it.

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.

Well, according to you there's always something very very wrong. You can just add this one to your list.---I am reminded of Chesterton's classic piece of sarcasm ...

You said those names mean nothing to anyone outside Calvinism, I said they should, you responded by deflecting the topic and making one of your wisecracks. How about just acknowledging that these guys are not small fish as you had at first said.

I didn't say nothing to anyone. But how much do you suppose Charles Spurgeon is going to mean to your typical Orthodox Russian, writing in a language he doesn't know in a tradition he doesn't follow?How does the converse work? How many Orthodox thinkers from let's say the last 500 years can you name, without looking it up?

Actually, they're smaller than big. I've heard of Charles Spurgeon but Jonathan Edwards and John MacArthur are pretty common names and don't ring any bells.

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

That the names I listed are unknown to any Christians is astonishing to me, but at this point I'm not going to try to prove they shouldn't be. The original point was that I personally rely on them to represent Calvinism for me.Just as Arminians get Calvin wrong I can get him wrong too, and if there is one thing I think I may have learned from this discussion it's that I may fall into some Arminian thinking myself. The concepts related to the sovereignty of God lead us into all kinds of difficult counter-intuitive places that our normal habits of thought rebel against. The only real concern, as I see it, is that they are biblical whereas the Arminian positions can be shown not to be.

And that is simply another example of the problem. You seem to accept what they say Calvinism is instead of checking what they say against what Calvin actually said.You do the same thing with the Bible, you do not test what the sermons you listen to say against what the Bible actually says.A great example was your claim that Revelation says that the serpent in Genesis 2&3 was Satan when that is not was Revelation actually says.

It's stupid beyond stupid to rely only on your own reading of the Bible or anything difficult like Calvin.We need to read it ourselves and then were there are questions we need to rely on our pastors to answer them, or read the best commentators and theologians we can find to help us understand it. God has appointed preachers and teachers, apostles and prophets, to help those whose personal gifts are different from theirs. The weirdest stuff comes from people who trust their own reading of the Bible.You are a case in point. You read it as if every sentence stood alone from every other sentence instead of reading intelligently with the expectation that the entire context conditions the reading of any one part. You seem incapable of understanding the concept of inference, you have to have it all in "so many words." Thus you defeat your own ability to understand the Bible. Or any book for that matter.There is more than one Bible reference that points to the serpent in Genesis as Satan, and you have to understand them intelligently as they refer to aspects of the identification that takes thought, they don't say it "in so many words" as you so blockheadedly require.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You keep saying really silly stuff like that.Honestly I and many other people who are not members of the Christian Cult of Ignorance can actually read what is written and do not need carny snake oil medicine men to tell us what it actually says. Nonsense. We need to point out to them that they are simply making shit up when they are making shit up.When people claim stuff that is different than what Calvin actually wrote then we need to stand up and shout "bullshit".

Yeah, you should ask me to explain it to you.Seriously, the intellectual buck has to stop somewhere. Apparently the good Lord didn't make himself clear enough when he wrote the Bible. So he sent us Calvin ... 1,500 years later ... to explain what he meant. But alas, Calvin is too subtle for us mere mortals to understand, so now we need a third person to explain to us what Calvin meant to say God meant to say. But then who is to explain to us what this third person means? That's exactly what the Pope said.

Thanks, I was hoping someone would point that out.However, it will go right over Faith's head.

The buck stops with a consensus of recognized teachers in Protestantism. Which got codified in such declarations as the Westminster Confession of Faith.The Pope would have a point if the RCC church actually taught the Bible rather than pagan superstitions.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.