Is Calvinism a rebranded form of gnosticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoheleth1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TULIPed said:
40.png
Qoheleth1:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
No come back I like arguing with you
 
Thank you my friend, I appreciate it. I overreacted myself - who picks up their toys and goes home any more? This is too much fun anyway.
 
That’s the point I’m trying to make. Calvin may have been well meaning, but his theology is a dangerous one.
 
Last edited:
Qoheleth1 said:
I retracted the statement.
Click to expand...
BTW, fellow ACNA member, perhaps we should worry about the Reformed log in our own denomination’s eye before looking elsewhere.

It was quite a shock for me when I realized how Calvinistic the DC-area ACNA churches are. Not my cup of tea. But it was the only way to get my wife to go to a liturgical, small-e episcopal church with me.
 
I agree.

It’s spreading rapidly through all denominations right now and it’s unsettling.

I find myself asking where I could pursue ordination. I simply won’t go against my principles.
 
Qoheleth1 said:
I agree.

It’s spreading rapidly through all denominations right now and it’s unsettling.

I find myself asking where I could pursue ordination. I simply won’t go against my principles.
Click to expand...
I’d push back on the idea that it’s spreading through Anglicanism. It’s a strong part of historic Anglicanism, always has been. The Articles are fairly Calvinist.
 
fhansen said:
Fallen man has a “full human nature” as well.
Click to expand...
No one said otherwise. This whole conversation was over a disagreement that does not exist, which is what I have been trying to tell you.
fhansen said:
I understood your point.
Click to expand...
The quote never said fallen man was less than full human. It was only saying that Christ was also fully human as well. That is what you misunderstood.
 
Last edited:
Qoheleth1 said:
This is false.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t.
Qoheleth1 said:
Calvinism is divine determinism. The very foundational tenants of this theology speak to the absence of any true ability to choose.
Click to expand...
Read some Jonathan Edwards. Man is free to choose, but without regeneration his choices will always tend toward sin and self-interest. Man has the natural ability to choose, but due to the fall he lacks the moral ability to choose.
Qoheleth1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree mostly, but that is not the Calvinist view.
Qoheleth1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That means you can be human without sin—which Christ was. There is no inconsistency within Calvinism here.
Qoheleth1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with this main point, which is why I’m not a Calvinist.
 
Last edited:
ltwin said:
No you don’t because you still think the quote’s talking about fallen man being less than full human—when he said no such thing LOL.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understood because I didn’t object to your point “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”. LOL My objection was a separate matter, involving the nature of “fallenness”, what it means to be fallen. I didn’t cite anyone as saying that fallen man was less than human. I objected to the statement that contrasts a full human nature with a fallen human nature: “the assumption of a full human nature (body and soul), not a fallen human nature”. I’m interested now in how you understand this statement.
 
Last edited:
fhansen said:
I objected to the statement that contrasts a full human nature with a fallen human nature: “the assumption of a full human nature (body and soul), not a fallen human nature”.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t contrasting the two. This is where the misunderstanding comes in. Here is the full quote:
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.
Click to expand...
He was responding to people who believed Christ needed a fallen human nature to be incarnate and to save us. Here he says only that Christ needed a fully human nature. It doesn’t have to be a fallen nature. He does not imply that fallen man lacks a full human nature.
fhansen said:
I’m interested now in how you understand this statement.
Click to expand...
It means Jesus was fully human and sinless, just as Adam was before the fall. Even though he was God, he was not less human.
 
Last edited:
Still trying to understand-sorry. So a “full human nature” equates to sinlessness? If so, this is what I’ve been objecting to as that’s how I’ve understood the position. What distinguishes a full human nature from a fallen human nature IOW?
 
fhansen said:
Still trying to understand-sorry. So a “full human nature” equates to sinlessness? If so, this is what I’ve been objecting to as that’s how I’ve understood the position. What distinguishes a full human nature from a fallen human nature IOW?
Click to expand...
Full human nature exists separate from sinfulness or sinlessness. I have a full human nature and Jesus had a full human nature. Sinfulness or sinlessness has no bearing on humanness, just like eye color doesn’t factor into your height.
 
fhansen said:
So a “full human nature” equates to sinlessness?
Click to expand...
No. Jesus was both. Fully human and sinless. He was not more God and less human just because he lived in perfect fellowship with his Father.
 
Ok, so there’s no such thing as a “fallen human nature”, right, as if human nature, itself, was corrupted or changed?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top