Is Calvinism a rebranded form of gnosticism?

[niceatheist]

I just think his theology is another tragic failure of the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura. His gnosis comes from misinterpretation and therefore failure to know the nature and will of God. One of the errors of the reformers is the idea of total depravity related to man having a sin nature, a completely changed nature as a result of the Fall from which he is completely unable to refrain from sin, rather than the chief aspect of original sin being spiritual separation from God, ‘apart from whom man can do nothing’, John 15:5. Including refraining from sin and retaining moral integrity. One of the ugliest “Christian” theologies either way

How is that substantially any different than Augustine’s view of man’s fallen nature? Luther and Calvin didn’t pull such views out of their hats, they had been advocated by previous theologians, including the aforementioned Augustine, though it could be postulated that Augustine was overstating his case as an attack on Origen’s Universalism. Still, these were educated men well steeped in Western Christian tradition.

Perhaps there is something to the Eastern Church’s dim view of Augustine.

 

[fhansen]

It doesn’t really make much difference. The western church doesn’t accept everything Augustine taught either. I do think Augustine sometimes overstated his case when battling against different heresies though, such as his case with grace against Pelagianism/legalism. Because he also supported the necessary role of man’s will in other statements he made.

 

[niceatheist]

It doesn’t really make much difference. The western church doesn’t accept everything Augustine taught either.

Huh? Short of St. Paul, Augustine is the single most influential theologian in the Western Church (okay, maybe Aquinas is a near tie with the esteemed theologian from Hippo).

 

[HopkinsReb]

Huh? Short of St. Paul, Augustine is the single most influential theologian in the Western Church

This is a different thing than “accept[ing]everything Augustine taught.”

 

[fhansen]

I’d put Aquinas ahead-and the church doesn’t even accept everything he taught.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Huh? Short of St. Paul, Augustine is the single most influential theologian in the Western Church

This is a different thing than “accept[ing]everything Augustine taught.”

My point is that Augustine’s view on the nature of fallen man was enormously influential. It was certainly sidelined by more optimistic views of humanity, and the Western Church had to do a balancing act between Origen’s highly optimistic view of humanity and Augustine’s much more dour view. I view Calvin as sort of the opposite end of the pole from Origen, but as I said Calvin and Luther weren’t just making these things up, and because Augustine’s position as one of the pre-eminent theologians of Western Christianity, they felt they had pretty good ground to stand on.

 

[fhansen]

The Church considers and weighs the opinions and teachings of her various theologians and thinkers and makes her decision on whether or not those ideas are consistent with the faith. That’s how it’s always worked.

 

[lanman87]

What are your thoughts?

Uh, No. Calvinist are not gnostics in any form or fashion.

• Calvinist are Trinitarian
• Calvinist don’t claim to have secret knowledge that can only be found in Calvinism
• Calvinist believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
• Calvinist believe the Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and was fully human and fully God.
• Calvinist believe salvation (past, present and future) comes by Grace through Faith in Christ.
• Calvinist believe that true and authentic faith is a living faith that changes a persons attitudes and actions from being opposed or indifferent to God and His Glory to that of loving God and and loving others with the ultimate purpose of bringing Glory to God

Any one of those things precludes Calvinist from being gnostic.

Also, Calvinist don’t claim that to be born again and come to faith in Christ you must understand Calvinism. They don’t claim that you must believe in Calvinism to get to heaven. Or that salvation is only found in Calvinistic theology.

 

[ltwin]

The elect do receive the special knowledge that their destiny is secure from “before eternity past” on what basis? It must be special knowledge, considering a human being cannot make such a presumption.

Assurance is based on God’s promises found in scripture and one’s faith in those promises and the one who made them. Yes, Calvinists do believe in the inner witness of the Spirit spoken about in scripture (Romans 8:16), but their teaching on assurance is supposed to make one humble and ever watchful about the state of one’s soul lest you deceive yourself.

 

[TULIPed]

Seriously?

 

[TULIPed]

The key question Calvin asks is this - who is your faith about? Is it more about me and my faith and my goodness and my sanctity and me and me and me. Or is it all about Christ?

I would say that today - especially today - in the age of post-modernism, where everything we hear and see is focused on our needs, wants and desires, that perhaps Calvin’s singular focus - overcooked in some cases as it may be - on Christ’s sovereignty, isn’t a bad thing. Or at the very least, it’s something to be considered.

“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”

It’s not about us. It’s not about our “choices”. It’s not about our “goodness”. It’s all about Him - and only Him. We exist and serve at His pleasure. Thank God he is merciful and gracious and loving.

 

[TULIPed]

Including refraining from sin and retaining moral integrity.

The point Calvin makes is not that you can’t refrain from sin. His point is that refraining from sin without Christ is pointless in terms of being restorative to our relationship with God.

“We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”

Calvinists attribute anything and everything good that they do to Christ. We are constantly examining ourselves (hopefully) to see the Holy Spirit at work in our lives.

Look - here’s the real deal for me. I’ve overcome things in my life that I know - without a doubt - I couldn’t have done on my own. Some things I’ve prayed over and over about - for God to take because I knew there was no way I could do it. There’s plenty left to fix - make no mistake. But a few things over many years have changed. I can only attribute that change to Christ - as I know I was powerless to effect them myself.

I am a Calvinist - it’s true. To say that I don’t refrain from sin or have moral integrity? Well - that’s true too. Painfully so. And so I rely entirely on Christ’s mercy and grace, and I keep looking expectantly for how the Holy Spirit might move in my life.

 

[TULIPed]

If memory serves, Mohammed called himself a prophet, no? I’d be curious to see where Calvin did so.

And Calvin’s followers didn’t limit themselves to violence on religious art - plenty of people ended up as fodder as a result of the reformation and the troubles that followed - for which men of both sides were to blame (at least according to the Catholic church):

“Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

And thats not even touching his disrespect of the Blessed Virgin. Even the Mohammedans didn’t go that far.

How was he disrespectful of the Blessed Virgin exactly? From the National Catholic Register:

“Calvin accepted the Catholic and scriptural belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary: “[On Matthew 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.” (Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, Geneva, 1562, Vol. I, p. 107; from Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949)”

 

[fhansen]

In Catholicism it’s expected that we’ll get onboard first of all, and then continue in our walk with Christ without absolute assurance of salvation, but trusting that He’ll do the right thing of course, with our fruits hopefully bearing witness that we’re oriented in the right direction. Likewise we can do nothing apart from Christ, apart from God. And while we cannot move our own wills towards Him without grace, we can nonetheless always say “no” to that grace, at any step along the way either at the beginning, or down the road in our walk. And this ability to resist grace, this role of the human will, however small, is an absolutely essential part of the gospel without which it crumbles into uselessness…

 

[TULIPed]

Saying no is one thing. Most folks have a problem with never having the option to say yes. Pharaoh would have something to say about this I’m sure.

On the other hand:

“as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved.”

If the Man chooses you to be on the team - I’m pretty sure you’re on the team, no?

Of course, if this is true, why did Jesus tell us to go and make disciples? No idea. I know, I know - you guys have that all figured out. (You guys call some stuff a mystery though - so even you guys don’t have it ALL figured out.)

I don’t know how you can go wrong with giving Christ too much credit. I guess if it makes us feel better to say that, gosh darnit, my choices matter - well, fair enough. I just have a hard time imagining God - the Creator of the universe - sitting around in heaven waiting on all of us to make up our minds.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I just have a hard time imagining God - the Creator of the universe - sitting around in heaven waiting on all of us to make up our minds.

I have just as hard a time imagining that we are automatons that behave one way unless God decided that we get to be the lucky few he allows not to be tortured for eternity and flipped a switch so we behave another way.

 

[TULIPed]

How we behave is immaterial in Calvin’s argument (thank God). How Christ behaves is the only thing that matters (double thank God).

 

[HopkinsReb]

How we behave is immaterial in Calvin’s argument (thank God). How Christ behaves is the only thing that matters (double thank God).

So the question I can never get a compelling answer to from Calvinists: why even bother trying to behave well? If we’re elect, we’re elect. If we’re not, we’re not. So just live it up and you end up in heaven if you were going to.

I know, I know, the Elect won’t do that. It’s just such a mechanistic approach to life; it deprives us of our humanity. It derives morality of purpose.

 

[TULIPed]

I know, I know, the Elect won’t do that. It’s just such a mechanistic approach to life; it deprives us of our humanity. It derives morality of purpose.

I literally laughed out loud just now HR!

I hear you. I like Calvin’s approach because it best explains my walk with Christ as I look back on it. The more and more I grow closer to Him, the more and more aware I am of my sin. The more aware of my sin I become, the more I realize that without Christ I am powerless over it. The only good stuff that’s happened to me in my life is because of Him. If I plot this stuff on a graph - well, it ends up kind in the land of Calvin.

Am I sure his theology is right? Of course not. Is there stuff that’s jacked up. Of course. But for me, it just seems to make sense.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

I know, I know, the Elect won’t do that. It’s just such a mechanistic approach to life; it deprives us of our humanity. It derives morality of purpose.

I literally laughed out loud just now HR!

I hear you. I like Calvin’s approach because it best explains my walk with Christ as I look back on it. The more and more I grow closer to Him, the more and more aware I am of my sin. The more aware of my sin I become, the more I realize that without Christ I am powerless over it. The only good stuff that’s happened to me in my life is because of Him. If I plot this stuff on a graph - well, it ends up kind in the land of Calvin.

Am I sure his theology is right? Of course not. Is there stuff that’s jacked up. Of course. But for me, it just seems to make sense.

I guess I don’t see why those views are incompatible with other approaches. Catholics also hold that without Christ we’re powerless over our sin. But it doesn’t have to reduce us to machines.