Can Calvinism be proven?

[Dave L]

He can't save them until they believe and obey. That's what scripture says. That's why Jesus calls belief a work.

They cannot believe and obey unless he saves them.

 

[Al Touthentop]

They cannot believe and obey unless he saves them.

Show me in the scripture where it says that.

 

[Dave L]

Show me in the scripture where it says that.

“They have not known nor understood: For he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; And their hearts, that they cannot understand.” Isaiah 44:18 (KJV 1900)

“And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; And see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, And make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” Isaiah 6:9–10 (KJV 1900)

“For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, And hath closed your eyes: The prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.” Isaiah 29:10 (KJV 1900)

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” 2 Thessalonians 2:11 (KJV 1900)

 

[Al Touthentop]

“They have not known nor understood: For he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; And their hearts, that they cannot understand.” Isaiah 44:18 (KJV 1900)

“And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; And see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, And make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” Isaiah 6:9–10 (KJV 1900)

“For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, And hath closed your eyes: The prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.” Isaiah 29:10 (KJV 1900)

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” 2 Thessalonians 2:11 (KJV 1900)

None of those scriptures says that one is saved before they believe.

Jesus says, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

Belief comes first. And if it doesn't, then there's no need to preach the gospel. People are just automatically saved.

 

[Deus Vult!]

You can ignore the context of Paul's letter and you can dismiss the old testament's plain words telling the Israelites that sacrifices resulted in the remission of sins. That does not mean a thing except that you do not accept God's words.

I didn't even go look for anyone else' opinion before when commenting. I went strictly off of my understanding of the reading of the Sacred Scripture. But go figure that when I look up a reference concerning your position - that the blood of animals was effective for remitting sins - there is a decree laid out by the one Church that condemns your current position:

"The Council of Trent condemns those who say that there is no difference except in the outward rite between the sacraments of the Old Law and those of the New Law (Sess. VII, can. ii). The Decree for the Armenians, published by order of the Council of Florence, says that the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace, but only prefigured the grace which was to be given by the Passion of Christ. This means that they did not give grace themselves (i.e. ex opere operato) but only by reason of the faith in Christ which they represented — “ex fide significata, non ex circumcisione significante” (Summa Theologiæ I-II:102:5)"

Here goes a another commentary on Hebrews(10:4):

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 3-4. But in them a remembrance of sins is made every year. For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sins should be taken way. The sacrifices of the former law, even that great sacrifice on the day of expiation, when victims were offered for the ignorances or sins of the priests, and of all the people, were only types and figures of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross, it was impossible that they themselves should take away sins, like that one oblation of Christ, though in them was made a remembrance of sins, and of the same sins for which so many victims had been offered. (Witham)

In fact, it is a blasphemous conclusion to even think that the Blood of Christ which was given for the remission of sins merely does the same that the blood of animals formerly did for Israel.

Again, this is why St.Paul clearly states:
Hebrews 10:4 - "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

 

[Al Touthentop]

Again, this is why St.Paul clearly states:
Hebrews 10:4 - "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Yes, ignore the previous passages where Paul explains that the sacrifice of Christ was better because it was one sacrifice for all sins whereas the old sacrifices were continually offered.

I do not consider the councils of men to have any weight.

 

[Josheb]

Suppose a person is saved, by whatever criteria you choose to define it, and he sets out to prove his salvation.

Since no saved person could willingly sin against God, he purposely sets out to sin. He snatches his neighbor's rake in the middle of the night and runs off with it.

Just to be sure, he resolves to never to confess his sin to man nor God.

What is his status from the foundation of the world?

I'm curious. Maybe you can provide me with some context.

1) Was the prophet Jonah saved?

2) Was Ananias saved?

3) To what degree was Peter aware he was behaving hypocritically when he behaved one way with the Gentile converts and another way with the Jewish converts?

Thx

 

[Deus Vult!]

Yes, ignore the previous passages where Paul explains that the sacrifice of Christ was better because it was one sacrifice for all sins whereas the old sacrifices were continually offered.

I do not consider the councils of men to have any weight.

"Paul explains that the sacrifice of Christ was better"- This not only because it was one sacrifice - as opposed to continual sacrifices under the Old Covenant - but because the blood of the one type was the blood of animals that profited nothing other than pointing to the sacrifice of Christ, while the Blood of the latter is the Blood of God Himself which profits everything, which was poured out for the forgiveness of sins.

"I do not consider the councils of men to have any weight."- And yet you accept the canon of Scripture to be the Canon of Scripture because the Catholic Church deemed it so.

You are fundamentally in error in how you view the Scripture and approach the Scripture.
The Bible does not interpret itself, in case you didn't know that just look at the wild nonsensical interpretations of the other guy you were debating with on this thread.
This is a fact.
God does not author such confusion. This is the reason he left a Church and a Holy Spirit to guide her until He returns again...
God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

 

[Albion]

I'm not a Calvinist, but Martin Luther said even if one commits adultery and murder a hundred times a day, he's still saved. I would think that's a logical conclusion of being irresistibly chosen.

But Luther didn't believe we're "irresistibly chosen." I think his meaning was that those who are saved by Faith are still sinners, but that their salvation is not negated by such sin.

HTacianas, however, put a different scenario to us in his post--one that's more appropriate for a discussion about Calvinism.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Suppose a person is saved, by whatever criteria you choose to define it, and he sets out to prove his salvation.

Since no saved person could willingly sin against God, he purposely sets out to sin. He snatches his neighbor's rake in the middle of the night and runs off with it.

Just to be sure, he resolves to never to confess his sin to man nor God.

What is his status from the foundation of the world?

Get a Bible; open it; read it: proven.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Suppose a person is saved, by whatever criteria you choose to define it, and he sets out to prove his salvation.

Since no saved person could willingly sin against God, he purposely sets out to sin. He snatches his neighbor's rake in the middle of the night and runs off with it.

Just to be sure, he resolves to never to confess his sin to man nor God.

What is his status from the foundation of the world?

Why the hypothetical? Let's talk about *you*. Have *you* loved God with all of your heart soul mind and strength — and your neighbor as yourself?

 

[Al Touthentop]

"Paul explains that the sacrifice of Christ was better"- This not only because it was one sacrifice - as opposed to continual sacrifices under the Old Covenant - but because the blood of the one type was the blood of animals that profited nothing other than pointing to the sacrifice of Christ, while the Blood of the latter is the Blood of God Himself which profits everything, which was poured out for the forgiveness of sins.

That's commentary, not scripture. He actually writes that the animal sacrifices did provide cleansing in at least two places in Hebrews.

"I do not consider the councils of men to have any weight."- And yet you accept the canon of Scripture to be the Canon of Scripture because the Catholic Church deemed it so.

The scripture was already canon before any council made it "official." In fact when Constantine convened the Nicean convention, he ordered 50 texts and did not dictate what was to be in them. They contained the 27 books of the New Testament.

Councils of men have never decided canon. The church did that by around 140 AD.

You are fundamentally in error in how you view the Scripture and approach the Scripture.
The Bible does not interpret itself, in case you didn't know that just look at the wild nonsensical interpretations of the other guy you were debating with on this thread.

It does in fact as God explains in Isaiah 28 and Paul tells us in Ephesians.

God does not author such confusion. This is the reason he left a Church and a Holy Spirit to guide her until He returns again...
God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

It isn't about pride. Paul tells us we can read and understand the scriptures. He was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that it was so. God isn't the author of confusion, true.

 

[Dave L]

None of those scriptures says that one is saved before they believe.

Jesus says, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

Belief comes first. And if it doesn't, then there's no need to preach the gospel. People are just automatically saved.

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit = saved before you can believe in any true sense.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It doesn't matter what acts I may have committed or not committed, nor does it matter the reasons I may or may not have committed them. It only matters that there are intentional sins and sins of ignorance.

1Jo 5:16 - If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.

In this we have to look at what sin leads to death.

When we examine scripture, we see Jesus saying much the same thing, that there is a sin one can commit that cannot be forgiven, that of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Now, this appears contextually and comparatively not to be a particular sin, or even of not knowing it's a sin in advance of committing it because in the old testament David committed adultery and premeditated murder yet was forgiven of his sin.

In the New Testament we see Peter denying Jesus through curses yet was forgiven for his sin... and it was a sin he knew was a sin or he wouldn't have known to ask forgiveness in the first place.

We see Paul having murdered Christians and committing blasphemy, by his own admission, and declaring he had to counsel two Christians who were likewise committing blasphemy in order they may stop.

Therefore we can conclude it's neither knowledge of, nor premeditated sin or any particular sins (like stealing an item) that are unforgivable.

So it comes down to determining what is done that cannot be forgiven. Many of the Jewish priests ended up being saved believers in Christ, and those were the ones Christ warned against blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

A deeper look then is necessary.

We know from John there are people who call themselves Christian who are in the saved group who sin, and others who are in the professed Christian group yet are beyond forgiveness.

So we know it's in the professing Christian group that we are to look..

According to Johns letters sin is something we all do, will do, and the remedy for that is to confess your sin and ask forgiveness for it, thereby being forgiven.

But there is something else that is too much. I think in examination of all the passages of similar nature we can conclude certain things:

1.) It's a rejection of Christ's work in salvation since John was earlier in this chapter speaking of salvation through Jesus Christ alone: he who has the Son has life, and he who does not have the Son of God, does not have life.

2.) It is not simply denying the truth of what was revealed to them through the Holy Spirit, (or those Jewish priests wouldn't have been saved) but blatantly calling the witness of the Spirit false or a lie.

John has spoken of the witness which the Holy Spirit bears to the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only source of salvation; all of this in verses 6-12. Here, clearly, is the identification of John's sin which leads to death with the sin or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Spirit testifies about Jesus, and though he is the Spirit of truth, his witness is represented as false, a lie, by the one who sins in this way. Calling the Holy Spirit a liar for what he has said is true about Jesus Christ - that is what John is speaking of in verse 10 of chapter 5, and that is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, or the sin which leads to death.

And it is still more clearly the case that this rejection of Jesus Christ is what is involved in this sin which leads to death, if we compare John with the two passages in Hebrews. In Hebrews 6:4-6 the author is discussing the case of those who 'fall away from Jesus Christ' and who, in so rejecting him, 'crucify him all over again and subject him to public disgrace.' And, again in Hebrews 10:26-31, the discussion is of those who trample the Son of God under foot, which is, we read there, the same thing as 'insulting the Spirit of grace'...that is the Spirit of God who has born witness to Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior.

The same idea is in the forefront in the gospels when Jesus warns the Pharisees of the sin against the Holy Spirit, precisely in the context of their rejecting him and the salvation he was bringing.

It seems there are many ways we can call the testimony of the Holy Spirit a lie, the 1.) by denying the existence of sin and therefore sinning all you like without remorse or care. Let's use your example of your thief in this.

Guy was some kind of cleptomaniac prior to being "saved" and joining the church, and now that he's a professed Christian he doesn't work to change this behavior, despite the Holy Spirits leading and teaching in this area, and going so far as to teach others it doesn't matter if they steal now that they are a Christian. And thus without remorse continues his life just like before, stealing anytime he finds opportunity without remorse and without asking forgiveness because he's decided in his own mind he's in the right.

Now, in recognizing the person who acts in this manner there may be one of two issues, 1.)The person is not really led by the Holy Spirit and simply not understanding the Truth of Christian life and thereby able to be counseled to the point of understanding.

Or 2.) permanently outside of Grace..

Knowing exactly what point someone is, whether ignorance or simply outside of Grace is tricky. This is why Paul spoke of removing people from church "in the hopes they may come to salvation".. sometimes people have to be removed from congregation so they don't spoil the flock, and in order God deals with them in other ways if counselling doesn't produce the desired result.

And there are other times God has dealt with this individual, and they have simply rejected the truth of God for their own idea of right behavior.

make sense?

In all cases it includes a denial of Jesus's redemptive work of salvation and calling the Truth of salvation revealed to them by the Holy Spirit a lie.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit = saved before you can believe in any true sense.

Faith was a fruit for those who received the gifts. It was not a general gift given to every believer as Paul tells the church at Corinth. Again, to believe was a command. You can't obey a promise, only a command. You're attempting to negate the gospel with your pretext. A pretext that wasn't even invented until the 16th century. Nobody in the first century thought that salvation preceded belief.

 

[Dave L]

Faith was a fruit for those who received the gifts. It was not a general gift given to every believer as Paul tells the church at Corinth. Again, to believe was a command. You can't obey a promise, only a command. You're attempting to negate the gospel with your pretext. A pretext that wasn't even invented until the 16th century. Nobody in the first century thought that salvation preceded belief.

Abel and Job, Abraham and others were born again as seen in their faith.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sorry didn’t realize I can’t post here.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sorry didn’t realize I can’t post here

 

[Deus Vult!]

That's commentary, not scripture. He actually writes that the animal sacrifices did provide cleansing in at least two places in Hebrews.



The scripture was already canon before any council made it "official." In fact when Constantine convened the Nicean convention, he ordered 50 texts and did not dictate what was to be in them. They contained the 27 books of the New Testament.

Councils of men have never decided canon. The church did that by around 140 AD.



It does in fact as God explains in Isaiah 28 and Paul tells us in Ephesians.



It isn't about pride. Paul tells us we can read and understand the scriptures. He was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that it was so. God isn't the author of confusion, true.

"That's commentary, not scripture. He actually writes that the animal sacrifices did provide cleansing in at least two places in Hebrews."- You are blind by the fact that you too are using your own commentary to try and understand the book of Hebrews - and the rest of the Bible - but you are coming to erroneous conclusions about it because either:
A.) You are relying on your own private interpretation of Scripture.
B.) You are relying on the interpretation of others in error.


"Councils of men have never decided canon. The church did that by around 140 AD."- What a silly comment. Councils of men in the unity of the Holy Spirit (Which constitutes the Church) is exactly who decided what the Canon of Scripture would be.
Also, please provide your evidence that "the church did that by around 140" please and thank you.

"It isn't about pride."- This is exactly what it is. But only one the humble could see it. You reject the authority of the clergy because you would rather just consult yourself on spiritual matters. At best you go cherry picking interpretations of Scripture from among others who reject the New Covenant Priesthood just like you do. This is certainly pride in full swing. This is the forewarned "rebellion of Korah" that St.Jude(1:11) warns you against.

"Paul tells us we can read and understand the scriptures. He was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that it was so."- While this same Holy Spirit through St.Peter in 2nd Peter(3:15-16) states that St. Paul's writings can be confusing, and that untaught and unstable people twist and contort the Sacred Scripture to their own destruction.
"15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

"God isn't the author of confusion, true."- I know.
Jesus did not leave us a Church that would be overcome by the evil one. Jesus keeps his promises. And wouldn't you know it, the Catholic Church is the oldest institution on the planet. Certainly Jesus does not consider His Church to be all these divided sects that all think they are right and the other wrong, all using the same bible, and all in error. Certainly Jesus would honor the one who humbles himself for the sake of the unity of His Body. It is blatantly obvious that most protestants are infected with pride, and it is perhaps the most sinister kind: religious pride.

I await your response to what I colored in blue.

 

[HTacianas]

Anyone saved or not can willfully indulge in sin.

According to the bible, what then becomes of them?