Is Calvinism a rebranded form of gnosticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoheleth1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, so there’s no such thing as a “fallen human nature”, right, as if human nature, itself, was corrupted or changed?
Getting out of my depth here, but I think the way I would frame it is that humanity was corrupted (or separated from God, or however one wants to phrase Original Sin), but humanness itself was not. Our Baptism does not change our human nature; it brings us into our proper familial relationship with God.
 
Getting out of my depth here, but I think the way I would frame it is that humanity was corrupted (or separated from God, or however one wants to phrase Original Sin), but humanness itself was not. Our Baptism does not change our human nature; it brings us into our proper familial relationship with God.
My question, IOW, is that when the author states , “Adam was fully human prior to his fall into sin”, was he saying that Adam wasn’t fully human after his sin??? It just seems like a muddled understanding to me, and inconsistent with Catholic understanding.
 
Last edited:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
Getting out of my depth here, but I think the way I would frame it is that humanity was corrupted (or separated from God, or however one wants to phrase Original Sin), but humanness itself was not. Our Baptism does not change our human nature; it brings us into our proper familial relationship with God.
My question, IOW, is that when the author states , “Adam was fully human prior to his fall into sin”, was he saying that Adam wasn’t fully human after his sin??? It just seems like a muddled understanding to me.
I think you’re making the same mistake as Protestants who think that when the Gospel writer says that Joseph did not know Mary until Jesus was born, that that implies that Joseph did know her after.

No, the point is not that Adam stopped having a full human nature after the Fall. The point is that he also had a full human nature before it.
 
But Thomas Cranmer was pretty much a Calvinist before he died, and before Edward VI died the English Church was heading in a strongly Reformed direction.
 
No, the point is not that Adam stopped having a full human nature after the Fall. The point is that he also had a full human nature before it.
I don’t know… Pretty hard to keep arguing with a Calvinist if we can’t find points to disagree with you know. Can’t have that. 😁 Thanks in any case. It was a relatively minor point anyway and that may have cleared it up for me.
 
The problem with this is that we’re not pottery. We’re human beings with souls.
Fearfully and wonderfully made. Items for special use. A little lower than the angels. A royal priesthood. Purchased at great cost. And on, and on and on. All truth. Thank God.

Yes - we matter. We have great worth - just ask my millennial children, and the millennials I interview at my office. “Please tell me about your vacation policy - I’m very focused on my personal wellness…”

Reformed theology feels right to me because it holds our value in tension with God’s sovereignty. I know - Catholicism does too, and it does it better. We can agree to disagree on that point me thinks.
 
40.png
HopkinsReb:
The problem with this is that we’re not pottery. We’re human beings with souls.
Fearfully and wonderfully made. Items for special use. A little lower than the angels. A royal priesthood. Purchased at great cost. And on, and on and on. All truth. Thank God.

Yes - we matter. We have great worth - just ask my millennial children, and the millennials I interview at my office. “Please tell me about your vacation policy - I’m very focused on my personal wellness…”

Reformed theology feels right to me because it holds our value in tension with God’s sovereignty. I know - Catholicism does too, and it does it better. We can agree to disagree on that point me thinks.
I think you misunderstand my point. My point in that post was not just that we have value; it was that we are beings. Pottery doesn’t get up and walk around. Pottery isn’t eternally damned or saved. Pottery doesn’t care what happens to itself. We get up and walk around. We’re eternally damned or saved. We care about what happens to ourselves. We are a fundamentally different class of thing than pottery, not just of different value. The logic of a potter and his pottery simply doesn’t apply to a Creator/Father and His creations/children.
 
Ah - so you’re saying that the metaphor in Romans 9 is strictly limited to the Israelites, i.e. pursuant to Jeremiah 18.

Except that Paul carries the metaphor to a personal level - although obviously in a different context in 2 Corinthians 4. Then there’s the whole “made from dust and to dust you shall return” thing.

In any event, I’m pretty sure God can do whatever he wants with us - like say - destroy every living creature, save one family and a bunch of animal pairs in a really smelly ark, in a cataclysmic flood. The good news is that whatever he does with us is done ultimately in perfect love, justice and mercy.

Look HR - here’s what I think about choices. I made the choice last weekend to watch UVA beat the ever loving daylights out of Yale in lacrosse. As a Reformed Christian, I know for a fact that he pre-destined UVA to win, and that those rich, super-elitist, ivy leaguers were double pre-destined to lose to their everlasting torment. Go Hoos.
 
Ah - so you’re saying that the metaphor in Romans 9 is strictly limited to the Israelites, i.e. pursuant to Jeremiah 18.
I’m saying that we should be careful about building an entire system of theology around one passage of one letter written to a specific church to address a specific issue that was going on at a specific time.
Except that Paul carries the metaphor to a personal level - although obviously in a different context in 2 Corinthians 4.
I don’t think 2 Corinthians 4 really bears on this.
Then there’s the whole “made from dust and to dust you shall return” thing.
Nobody’s denying that we are small and fleeting.
In any event, I’m pretty sure God can do whatever he wants with us - like say - destroy every living creature, save one family and a bunch of animal pairs in a really smelly ark, in a cataclysmic flood. The good news is that whatever he does with us is done ultimately in perfect love, justice and mercy.
Nobody is denying this, either. What I reject is the notion that He goes so far as to make us his little puppets, creating some of us in the knowledge that we are incapable of avoiding damnation on our own and refusing to give us any option other than horrifying, unceasing torment for all of eternity. That could not be done “in perfect love, justice and mercy.” That would be done in perfect sadism.
Look HR - here’s what I think about choices. I made the choice last weekend to watch UVA beat the ever loving daylights out of Yale in lacrosse. As a Reformed Christian, I know for a fact that he pre-destined UVA to win, and that those rich, super-elitist, ivy leaguers were double pre-destined to lose to their everlasting torment. Go Hoos.
I’m pretending like lax doesn’t exist until Hopkins decides to get good again.
 
I’m saying that we should be careful about building an entire system of theology around one passage of one letter written to a specific church to address a specific issue that was going on at a specific time.
Dust off Institutes (I know you have it squirreled away somewhere - don’t worry, your secret’s safe with me) and have a re-look. The system is built on a wee bit more than Romans 9. It’s just my favorite part.
I’m pretending like lax doesn’t exist until Hopkins decides to get good again.
You guys have had a couple of good recruiting classes. It’s only a matter of time.
 
Dust off Institutes (I know you have it squirreled away somewhere - don’t worry, your secret’s safe with me) and have a re-look. The system is built on a wee bit more than Romans 9. It’s just my favorite part.
I actually don’t – the extent of my Calvinist library is a copy of the Westminster Confession and a few Keller books.
You guys have had a couple of good recruiting classes. It’s only a matter of time.
One can hope!
 
Personally, I always liked the Potter/clay example. It shows Who’s boss-and Who’s final design is the right one. Except that in our case the clay can resist the Potter’s molding, refusing to be molded at all, unmalleable as it were.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I always liked the Potter/clay example. It shows Who’s boss-and Who’s final design is the right one. Except that in our case the clay can resist the Potter’s molding.
Yeah, I don’t mind it if it’s used judiciously and with extensive qualification.
 
On the question of assurance of salvation based on “special knowledge”, I’d also like to add, in addition to my other points up-thread, another disagreement. Classical Reformed theology did not teach instantaneous assurance of salvation. Chapter 18 of the Westminster Confession of Faith describes Presbyterian teaching on assurance of faith:
I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
It then explains that not every true believer will have assurance of salvation and many will have to wait years before they do gain assurance–and even still they may doubt or have moments of uncertainty, so that far from relying on “special knowledge” or revelation they are encouraged to make their “calling and election sure.”
III. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.
 
Calvinism is basically the Augustinian/Thomistic tradition in the Reformed context. Augustine and Aquinas (and Luther) all taught double predestination, monergism, etc., etc. In other words, all of the above fall under the broader Augustinian/predestinarian umbrella. On the other hand, we could be anachronistic and call Augustine the most famous Calvinist before Calvin…

The primary distinction between Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Brother Calvin is the belief of Augustine/Aquinas/Luther that the non-elect may temporarily partake in justifying grace without the gift of final perseverance whereas Bro. Calvin believed that whenever justifying grace was given the gift of final perseverance was also given. The Anglican formularies lean heavily towards Augustine’s position vs. that of Bro. Calvin (eg the reality that some truly fall after receiving justifying grace), but the 39 Articles themselves are written broadly enough for either side to feel at home (the 39 Articles don’t even exclude classic Arminian doctrine for that matter—and proto-Arminians were among those who originally approved the Articles).

[As a side note—I agree with the Augustinian tradition on predestination and hold Augustine’s position on the reality that some truly fall from grace vs. the position of Calvin. That said, I believe Augustine’s (and Calvin’s) predestinarian framework can and should be maintained, so far as is possible, in a way that agrees with the affirmations of the Arminians (which are generally affirmations of various teachings of Scripture that can be easily overlooked when focusing on the Sovereignty of God)—i.e. “both/and” rather than “either/or”.]

Neither position (ie Augustinian vs Calvinist on the question of falling from grace) impacts assurance since all sides affirm that the only way to prove one’s status as elect vs non-elect is to persevere in grace to the end. (Likewise, the warnings against careless presumption and the emphasis on the necessity of perseverance in faith and holiness in all who inherit eternal life is the same on all sides).

Thankfully, unlike the anti-assurance focus on the unknowability of God’s elective decrees by Augustine, all those who are heirs to the reformers (whether Augustinian or Calvinist on the question of falling from grace) emphasize the Scriptural truth that we can and should have full assurance of our election to glory (as is commanded in 2 Peter “make your calling and election sure”).
 
Last edited:
p.s. As I noted in another thread, limited time this week (or month), so I’ll need to sign off this thread. Have a great week all.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top