Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity?

I noticed this as well. I find it perfectly acceptable to admit we don't know or can't know some particular aspect about God, but Calvin's problem is, as you say, he does so after he paints himself into a corner. After he has piled up logical inconsistencies, that is when he declares that we dare not think too hard. He states that A=B and B=C, but A does NOT equal C - but don't actually think about that because it's not something you can understand. Just by the logic alone it is clear he has something terribly wrong.HBD

But is that not the very basis of "Biblical Christianity"; the Commandment that "Thou shalt not think too much"? Is that not how they approach all theology; taking "proof texts" out of context to avoid the implications when the full dialog is considered; simply declaring that there are no discrepancies, contradictions and outright falsehoods in the Bible and ignoring what is actually written or accepting any excuse to explain away the issues, to deny the god character in the Bible is as evil as is written; declaring there is a constant and consistent theme and purpose to scripture or a "God of the Bible"?

Except her version is really not all that watered down, its just that she, like Calvin himself, denies that there are any real inconsistencies in the theology and just ignores the logical implications. I don't personally know anyone in the Calvinistic tradition that would say that God only loves the elect. That would be full on Calvinism.HBD

Calvinists know perfectly well, and so does Calvin, that God "so loved the world" etc., and that perfection is defined as being kind to both the just and the unjust, that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, including our enemies, so Calvin can't be saying that God only loves the elect. Spurgeon in contrasting His loving Jacob but hating Esau may have made it sound that way, but that must be only because he's emphasizing that context and not dealing with the concept of love as such.The problem is that what Calvin is saying, that we are all having so much trouble with, IS biblical and yet the Bible says that God cannot sin. Logic may say something else but logic isn't our standard, the Bible is. Logical inconsistencies that contradict the Bible have to be ignored, not because there's something obviously wrong with our logic, but because they DO contradict the Bible. And this is where it is perfectly reasonable to say that this is all beyond our understanding and exit this futile argument.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem is that it is Calvin's interpretation of the Bible that is logically inconsistent. So that doesn't mean that anyone is suggesting that the Bible is wrong. It is Calvin's interpretation that is wrong. Logical inconsistencies are the thing one CAN'T ignore. A married bachelor. A round square... which is a good example.The Bible refers to the "circle of the earth" and it also refers to the "four corners of the earth." So the earth must be a round square, and both are Biblical, so we need to just ignore the logical inconsistency. But we can't ignore it can we? The earth cannot be a round square. We must be misunderstanding one or both of those passages. What we come to understand in this case is that neither passage is meant to describe the geometry of the plant earth. Instead, it describe the world in the way the ancients would have envisioned it.This is how Calvin developed his theology. He started with a premise and then describe another premise, but when he got to putting those two premises together, he waved away the fact that they were incompatible. What he is doing is starting with the wrong premise and filtering everything else through that filter. PaulK said it well that

quote:

---

Calvinism exalts God's power, at the expense of God's character

---

If you started with God's character as revealed through Jesus and filtered everything else through that filter, you would get a completely different picture.It's not that Calvin is 100% wrong, it's that he creates logical inconsistencies and implications about God's character that I find completely unacceptable and un-Biblical. This thread has made it ever so much clearer that Calvinism is just flat wrong. The kind of logical inconsistencies involved in Calvinism cannot be ignored.HBD

There is nothing logical or logically consistent about the concept of the Trinity but it is Biblical.I may come back to this later, I'm getting tired.

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.

Yes he can. In Calvin's theology, perfection is not defined by kindness or love, but by being God. God's allowed to do things we're not allowed to do, because when he does so he's not breaking his law. So, for example, we are forbidden vengeance and told to love our enemies, but God, says Calvin, has "a vengeance which once kindled burns to the lowest hell" --- and he's perfect. We are told to be truthful, but, says Calvin, "a spirit of error is sent from God himself" making people believe lies --- and he's perfect.God, says Calvin, has "forbidden us to turn and incline our mind to wrath, hatred, adultery, theft, and falsehood", but, says Calvin, and says it repeatedly, God himself turns and inclines our minds to wrath, hatred, adultery, theft, and falsehood --- and he's perfect.We, you say, should be kind to the unjust, but Calvin's God punishes the unjust in this life and the next with a bestial and insatiable cruelty --- and he's perfect.As Calvin remarks: "It is perverse to measure divine by the standard of human justice": what would be unspeakably evil in us is apparently a mark of perfection in God. To Calvin, the Biblical idea that "God can't sin" doesn't mean that God is constrained by anything remotely resembling morality; rather, it means that God can do what the heck he likes and it doesn't count as sinful.Now, there are one or two little problems with this aspect of Calvin's theology, which I may discuss at a later date. But that's what Calvin's theology is, and so you shouldn't try to interpret his theology as though he thought that it would be wrong for God to do what it's wrong for humans to do. Calvin thinks nothing of the sort.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Would God be responsible if He only foreknew what we ended up doing? If we become (and became) the decisions that we make, how is God responsible simply by foreknowing? To argue that we could not have possibly done anything else than what we did does not absolve us of the responsibility for the many choices we made in life.People get upset that they can never decide to do anything without God foreknowing it---thus they are trapped. I say get over it. If you end up thinking God to be evil and a God to be opposed, you likely will do just that---and again it will be your free decision---even if God foreknew what you would end up doing.

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.

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.

Well, that's actually the inconsistency. It's not so much that he ignores contradictory verses, it is that they need to be compartmentalized. God IS love. God creates people to be evil and then punishes them. Man has no real choice as to his actions. God only loves the elect and hates the reprobate. Each of these is said to be true, but you can't think about them all at once. This is a fair observation and criticism and certainly there are things about God to which we can never make sense of using human logic and judgement. But we CAN apply human logic and judgement to Calvin's theology, which is a human construct - a human system to explain God. Despite Faith's insistence that Calvin IS absolutely Biblical, theology is, at it's core, a human system.The reason for the problems in Calvin's theology is the premise he starts with. He stresses God's power and sovereignty at the expense of his other qualities.HBD

But that position also rejects the direct teachings of the Bible that mankind has the same ability to judge morality as does God. That is shown by direct statement in Genesis 3 and demonstrated by the dialog found in Genesis 18:

quote:

---

17 And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;

​

18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

​

19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

​

20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

​

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

​

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.

​

23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

​

24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

​

25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

​

26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

​

27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:

​

28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

​

29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.

​

30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

​

31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

​

32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

​

33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

---

So when Calvin claims that humans cannot understand or judge God's behavior in the area of morality then at best he is being willfully ignorant of what the Bible actually says.

I'm not sure that that dialog proves what you want it to, though. Presumably God already knows that there aren't fifty, or forty-five, or even ten good men in Sodom: so Abraham may think that he's negotiating with God and extracting concessions from him, but he isn't.But maybe I'm missing your point.