Is Calvinism a rebranded form of gnosticism?

[Hodos]

I am pretty certain you have some serious misunderstandings about both Gnosticism and Calvinism.

 

[fhansen]

"ltwin:

First, it tends to neglect the fact that fallenness is not intrinsic to humanity. Fallenness is a not a “part” of humanity that must be healed. It is a condition of moral corruption and a propensity toward sin. All that is required for the Son’s genuine incarnation and his representative work on our behalf is the assumption of a full human nature (body and soul), not a fallen human nature. Adam was fully human prior to his fall into sin. And Christ is fully human even though he does not possess the corruption of other human beings.

And yet this misses the mark. The problem with fallen man is not that his nature has changed, or that it’s no longer a “full human nature”. Rather the problem is that something very non-human, Something uncreated, is missing, something Jesus always possessed and something Adam had possessed at the beginning, which is communion with God, ‘apart from whom we can do nothing’, to paraphrase John 15:5. This state of separation from God describes the state known as Original Sin and is responsible for all human misery. Jesus came to rectify this situation by reconciling man with God again so that we may know Him. This communion, which begins with faith on man’s part, is the source and even essence of man’s justice.

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

 

[ltwin]

And yet this is wrong.

How so? Are you saying falleness is intrinsic to human nature?

The problem with fallen man is not that his nature has changed, or that it’s no longer a “full human nature”.

Please re-read the paragraph again. You misunderstand it. The author specifically said, “Fallenness is a not a ‘part’ of humanity that must be healed.” And no one said that fallen man was not fully human. Obviously, all of us are fully human, despite our falleness.

The point the writer made (and the point I was making by quoting it to the OP) was that Calvinists do not believe that Jesus had original sin or had to be born with a sinful or fallen nature to truly be human—since as you and I and Calvinists agree sin was not originally present in human nature. All Jesus needed was a “full human nature”, which he had.

I agree with everything else you wrote.

 

[Qoheleth1]

Calvinists will say man can make choices. Those choices absent the Spirit’s regenerating work, however, will be inclined toward sin, evil and selfishness even when they could be defended as “good choices”

This is false. Calvinism is divine determinism. The very foundational tenants of this theology speak to the absence of any true ability to choose. I do concede some reformed individuals vary as to which specific doctrine they accept.

Even the elect are totally depraved until the moment of regeneration.

Yes, but how can one be regenerated before proclaiming the faith? It should be the other way around: the grace has been offered and through faith the process of sanctification and regeneration begins.

No, because man was created good. Depravity is not intrinsic to human nature.

Not according to Calvin himself. Before the fall human nature was completely good and innocent, now everyone has the inclination to sin and must respond to grace through faith. Calvinist theology does not even give man the ability to respond.

The merit is Christ’s salvific work applied to the elect by their faith in Christ. The elect have no more knowledge than the non-elect. They are simply chosen for election

The issue with this is that true faith cannot be coerced. One cannot choose another to salvation and another to damnation and hold them morally culpable. Scripture is clear on this.

Deuteronomy 30:15-20 comes to mind.

 

[Qoheleth1]

fhansen:

He created some to experience eternal bliss and the rest eternal torment , without regard to their will.

I don’t make the news my friend, I just report it…

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”

I hear you though. And I’m sympathetic to your argument. Romans 9 is super hard to read. I like passages like John 3:16 and Matthew 28 way better. I just think post modernism has moved the pendulum way, way away from God’s sovereignty and way, way towards our own. Of all the mistakes Calvin makes, this isn’t one.

This is a grave misinterpretation of Romans 9, and is not sufficient on its own to solidify Calvinist soteriology.

In the case of Pharaoh, he was given warning but refused. Therefore God hardened is heart and raised him up to accomplish his purpose. It is not as if Pharaoh had no choice, it’s that he lived a life of perpetual rejection.

Other than than, in context the passage refers primarily to the nation of Israel and the judgements incurred on them, then shifts to Gentiles beings grafted in after a profession of faith.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

Can that be interpreted as God allowed Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened? Perhaps God was preventing Pharaoh from hardening his heart until that moment?

 

[Qoheleth1]

I believe that’s valid.

 

[TULIPed]

is not sufficient on its own to solidify Calvinist soteriology.

Agreed. There’s many more I could have used. And it’s true that Romans 9 is focused on Israel. But so is the entire Old Testament, and yet we - both Protestants and Catholics - use it as an analogy as to how God pursues us in spite of our actions. I’m pretty sure we all use Romans 9 as an example of God’s sovereignty in all things. That was my point, ill made as it was.

I think you guys would say that we hold our “cooperation” in God’s plan in tension with God’s sovereignty. And maybe you’re right. (I know, I know - you know you’re right - must be nice.) In any case, I would argue that you can’t go wrong with erring on the side of God’s complete sovereignty.

 

[TULIPed]

Except for the fact that God says he “raised him up for this very purpose.”

Tough sledding.

 

[fhansen]

How so? Are you saying falleness is intrinsic to human nature?

No, I obviously denied that

The point the writer made (and the point I was making by quoting it to the OP) was that Calvinists do not believe that Jesus had original sin or had to be born with a sinful or fallen nature to truly be human—since as you and I and Calvinists agree sin was not originally present in human nature.

I understood your point.

All Jesus needed was a “full human nature”, which he had.

And yet, this is the part that’s wrong, or at least off the mark or muddled. Fallen man has a “full human nature” as well. Yes, “fallenness is not a not a “part” of humanity”, as if it’s something extra that’s been added to man due to Adam’s sin. And this means that, yes, fallenness involves something missing. But while the “something”, the fallenness, is not a “part” of a human that’s been added neither is it a part that’s been taken away such that fallen man no longer possesses a “full human nature”, as if being fully human, being fully natural, automatically means to be in a state of justice. Or as if human nature had changed in some way due to the fall. Fallen man simply fell to his natural self, who he is and how he behaves when he’s no longer in subjugation to God, a partnership he was made for and yet one that, without, man exists in a sort of state of living death.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I’m having trouble believing God raised someone up to sin against his own people.

 

[TULIPed]

You and me both my friend.

And yet - I think the end of the verse is the key: "that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

For me, there is great comfort in this. As Believers, isn’t our highest and best use to glorify God?
I know I’m going to make some bad calls. Happens every day. The good news is that God, in his sovereignty will ultimately use me - bad choices and all - to glorify himself. After all, if He could use Pharaoh, he can use us all, no?

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

Don’t forget, “At the expense of those that were just destined for sin and damnation.”

 

[TULIPed]

We hold His sovereignty in tension with His goodness and mercy. I trust the Potter knows what he’s doing with the clay - and that he’ll do it with justice and mercy and steadfast love.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I trust the Potter knows what he’s doing with the clay - and that he’ll do it with justice and mercy and steadfast love.

The problem with this is that we’re not pottery. We’re human beings with souls. Bad pottery doesn’t have eternal life and, unless it’s been randomly selected for heaven, spend eternity in torment.

The sovereignty of the King does not mean His subjects are wind-up toys. A just, loving king lets his subjects make their own decisions and live their own lives. They get to choose. The “king is the potter and the subjects are the clay” model isn’t the just king; it’s Mao.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I’ll trust the potter knowing he won’t purposefully bash in his clay one day.

 

[Qoheleth1]

You’ve got some more trouble from 2 Timothy, friend.

Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable,[ he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house,

You are taking Romans 9 way out of context. Read the entire book of Romans and you shall see.

 

[TULIPed]

That would not be very merciful.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Or maybe the Bible for starters

That was uncalled for.

 

[TULIPed]

You are taking Romans 9 way out of context. Read the entire book of Romans and you shall see. Or maybe the Bible for starters

Now now. No need for ad hominem. How about I’ll presume you’re writing in good faith with good intentions, and you do the same for me. On that note, I’ll check out. Peace to all.