Actuality vs Potentiality?

[DrJamesAch]

..

Icon, You did good!

You provided the Scriptures that accurately answered the question.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Although Icon's quote does not support 'particular redemption' or 'irresistible grace', it actually DOES answer at least the question of whether salvation is actual or potential.

See Icon, you CAN answer without a Creed!:applause:

Those same Scriptures also comment on another point in which the OP did not mention directly, but is (by the two considerations) needing to be addressed.

THIS part is important that address:

12 But this man (Christ), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (note not "progressively" but "positionally" - the believer is already sanctified) (note 2: This sanctification is not just to gentile, but look below to the Israeli)


15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."

​

This part of the passage is a BIG problem for the "non-cal" folks who do not consider such items as "irresistible grace" as Scriptural.

This is NO WAY supports 'irresistible grace'. You don't get perfected until you are sanctified. The verse doesn't say "who forever SANCTIFIED them that are PERFECTED". This verse is clear that it is a reference to those who are RIGHT NOW sanctified, not a reference to any future elect. It was a reference to the audience that was sanctified when Paul wrote it.

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:" 1 Cor 1:2

Paul isn't laying emphasis on the election of a believer, but on the TYPE OF PERSON WHO IS PERFECTED, i.e, one who is sanctified which becomes effective WHEN they get sanctified.

For as much as they would "determine" such a view is untrue, here it is clearly stated as decreed by God that it WILL happen, and the folks have NO CHOICE but to respond.

GOD does the work, man only responds.

Decree is not mentioned one time in Hebrews 10. More Calvinist theology ADDED to the Scriptures.

And you say man has 'nothing to do with salvation' but yet claim that 'man only responds' which is a blatant contradiction to Calvinist theology. If man has no choice, then God's work would be done whether man responds or not. In fact, a response isn't even necessary because a response would be a human indication of evidence which is contrary to Calvinism's assertion that man 'plays no part in salvation'.

How can ANY premillennial person's view not embrace irresistible grace based upon this passage alone?

The whole premillennial thinking must support that God WILL "put a hook" into the heart and mind of the Israeli folks - a hook that cannot be resisted, and will present them understanding and acceptance of the Messiah at His coming.

You apparently haven't studied Revelation very much. How could there be only a REMNANT if the "hook place on Israel" can not be resisted? You have a gross misunderstanding of the pre mil position as to why there will only be a remnant (because the remaining unbelievers will be killed off, leaving a believing remnant-Rev 19:21), and what happens to the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles during the tribulation.

"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:" Revelation 9:20

"And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory." Rev 16:9

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" Revelation 14:6-7

A clear appeal to choice, and an appeal made to EVERYONE THAT DWELLS ON THE EARTH, not just "elect".

Furthermore, Revelation makes it clear that receiving the mark, name or number of the beast is a CHOICE of which men will be hardened AFTER THEY CHOOSE TO REJECT CHRIST AND TAKE THE MARK.

"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Rev 13:17
"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:" Rev 14:9-10

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." 2 Thess 2:10

Revelation 3:5 in particular throws a HUGE monkey wrench into Calvinist theology during the tribulation.

" He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." Revelation 3:5

And you assertion that Hebrews 10 supports 'irresistible grace' and that man has no choice is specifically refuted by verse 38:

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him."

 

[Herald]

That's fine...but you need to make yourself far more explisit than a quick blanket statement otherwise you could misrepresent something important.

I believe I explained it well enough, but obviously not for everyone.

 

[kyredneck]

I think 'Positional vs. Practical' may be the better articulation.

Explain in more detail please.

The example used several times in the NT is the 'Exodus generation'. God Himself with a strong hand redeemed Israel from the house of bondage, yet because of their disobedience and unbelief He swore in His wrath that they would not enter into that land of milk and honey that had been available to them had they only obeyed. But they disobeyed and as a result wandered in the wilderness for the remainder of their lives.

Yet even after all they had done in the wilderness after leaving Egypt (unbelief, murmuring, idolatry, fornication, rebellion, etc.), and even with Balaam wanting so badly to curse Israel, God made Balaam to say:

He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob; Neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: Jehovah his God is with him, And the shout of a king is among them. Nu 23:21

So we see that positionally Israel was indeed redeemed and blameless, yet practically they perished in the wilderness for their unbelief and disobedience.

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. Ro 4:8

 

[Winman]

I have been thinking about this in view of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Is there a "potentiality" or an "actuality" to it? Is there an actualality(sp?) of being saved, or merely a chance?

It is both Willis. God does his part which is actual, we do our part which is potential.

Let me see if I can explain with the story of the woman at the well.

Jhn 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Here Jesus compares the Spirit and having life to water. It is actual, it exists, but we must DRINK this water.

You could be dying of thirst and I could give you a big glass of cool water that will prevent you from dying. That glass of water is real, it is provided for you, but you must take and DRINK that water for it to profit you.

The Calvinists will not like this, but the scriptures always show synergy. We could not drink of this water of life unless God provides it, so no man can possibly save himself. Nevertheless, God does not force us to drink, we must willingly and knowingly receive this gift and drink (believe).

This is shown over and over again.

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Here the writer says we should fear, lest we come short of a promise left us. That certainly overthrows Irresistible grace doesn't it?

But notice, the same gospel was preached to these unbelievers. And what is the gospel?

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Paul preached the same message to these unbelievers that he preached to those who believed "how that Christ died for our sins". Paul told these unbelievers that Jesus died for them, because in all actuality he did.

But again, we must do our part and believe, the gospel did not profit these persons because the gospel was not mixed with faith. The word of God only effectually works in those that believe.

1 The 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Again, the word of God and the Spirit are like a drink of cool water that can keep you from dying of thirst, but you must DRINK the water for it to profit you, you must BELIEVE before it will effectually work in you.

But it is there if you want it, it truly exists, it is actual.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The water of life is there and free to anyone who wants it, but you must take of it and drink.

 

[quantumfaith]

lol, never thought of you as wishy washy.

I think part of the problem I have with most of the options is that I could find Scripture that backs them all up and find Scriptures that refute them all.

I'm all for doctrinal purity, but I am not sure we will understand all this until we get to heaven. Until then, I'm going to let God be God, keep preaching the Word and try to help those who have never heard the Gospel hear it.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[agedman]

This is NO WAY supports 'irresistible grace'. You don't get perfected until you are sanctified. The verse doesn't say "who forever SANCTIFIED them that are PERFECTED". This verse is clear that it is a reference to those who are RIGHT NOW sanctified, not a reference to any future elect. It was a reference to the audience that was sanctified when Paul wrote it.

James - do not neglect that the word "sanctification" can be replaced by the word "Holy."

Now, you know that the Jews consider that something is either "clean - Holy" or "unclean - unholy." There is no in between state of being.

Because some embrace some "progress" to sanctification or some "partial holy" state, such read into the Scriptures from a view that is not actually presented.

Because this was accomplished by God when those he chose "from the foundations of the world" then it is applicable to all believers.

Again, that you do not hold that view is not a problem with the veracity of the view.

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:" 1 Cor 1:2

Paul isn't laying emphasis on the election of a believer, but on the TYPE OF PERSON WHO IS PERFECTED, i.e, one who is sanctified which becomes effective WHEN they get sanctified.

Look at the passage - not just the verse:

1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

​

I do not see this nor your comment as anything but supportive (at this time) of what I posted.

Please note the bold parts. They support what I posted.

Decree is not mentioned one time in Hebrews 10. More Calvinist theology ADDED to the Scriptures.

So this is NOT a decree by the Lord? 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord,"

I thought you boasted and supported the Pre-mill view. Do you reject what Christ stated as a decree of what will happen to the Israeli "after those days?"

And you say man has 'nothing to do with salvation' but yet claim that 'man only responds' which is a blatant contradiction to Calvinist theology. If man has no choice, then God's work would be done whether man responds or not. In fact, a response isn't even necessary because a response would be a human indication of evidence which is contrary to Calvinism's assertion that man 'plays no part in salvation'.

Are you limiting God?

Are you stating that humankind has authority over God's work to be actually able to thwart the work of God?

Are you posting that the Creator has no power over His creation to make of the vessels those of honor and dishonor?

Such attempts would seem to pervert the Scriptures by such assertions.

God's work is done despite the fallen condition of humankind. That is why the believer responds in belief, but humankind cannot of their own volition express "acceptance" in order to gain belief.

You apparently haven't studied Revelation very much. How could there be only a REMNANT if the "hook place on Israel" can not be resisted? You have a gross misunderstanding of the pre mil position as to why there will only be a remnant (because the remaining unbelievers will be killed off, leaving a believing remnant-Rev 19:21), and what happens to the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles during the tribulation. (post shortened for space)

As a pre-mill view holder, you know very well that the Israeli's do NOT accept the messiah in mass until they "look upon Him whom they pierced."

Your attempt to blend salvation into "the hook" as occurring at the same time, is misguided. The hook is to draw the people back to the homeland. This migration is and will continue to take place even through the plagues of the Tribulation. However, that does not prevent the rest of the decree from being effective during the Millennial reign.

I thought you knew all this.

 

[Herald]

So we see that positionally Israel was indeed redeemed and blameless, yet practically they perished in the wilderness for their unbelief and disobedience.

Not to go too deep down a bunny trail. You touched on something important when you wrote, "[Israel] perished in the wilderness for their unbelief and disobedience". God established the special covenant relationship He had with Israel. So long as the nation obeyed God would bless them. When they disobeyed God would curse them (Deut. 27 & 28). While God dealt corporately with the nation, salvation was always on the basis of faith. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). It was quite possible to outwardly be a good member of the covenant nation, while inwardly to be unregenerate. Hophni and Phinehas were perfect examples (1 Samuel 3 & 4). Levitical priests who were inwardly corrupt and unregenerate.

 

[kyredneck]

Not to go too deep down a bunny trail. You touched on something important when you wrote, "[Israel] perished in the wilderness for their unbelief and disobedience". God established the special covenant relationship He had with Israel. So long as the nation obeyed God would bless them. When they disobeyed God would curse them (Deut. 27 & 28). While God dealt corporately with the nation, salvation was always on the basis of faith. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). It was quite possible to outwardly be a good member of the covenant nation, while inwardly to be unregenerate. Hophni and Phinehas were perfect examples (1 Samuel 3 & 4). Levitical priests who were inwardly corrupt and unregenerate.

The individual of 1 Cor 5:5; positionally he was redeemed and blameless, practically he had been turned over to Satan.

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. Ro 4:8

 

[kyredneck]

5 Howbeit with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
11 Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. 1 Cor 10

10 Wherefore I was displeased with this generation, And said, They do always err in their heart: But they did not know my ways;
11 As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.
12 Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God: Heb 3

 

[Aaron]

I have been thinking about this in view of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Is there a "potentiality" or an "actuality" to it? Is there an actualality(sp?) of being saved, or merely a chance?

You are asking the right questions. :thumbs:

Here are the answers in a nutshell.

Calvinists: yes, the Cross saves.

Noncalvinists: no, the Cross only opened the door to salvation. One must still walk in.

 

[kyredneck]

You are asking the right questions. :thumbs:

Here are the answers in a nutshell.

Calvinists: yes, the Cross saves.

Noncalvinists: no, the Cross only opened the door to salvation. One must still walk in.

:thumbs:

6 For while we were yet weak, in due season Christ died for the ungodly.
8 But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.
10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;
11 and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Ro 5

While we were yet weak, sinners, and enemies, Christ justified and reconciled us through His blood. We were TOTALLY PASSIVE in that. We had ZILCH to do with it.

 

[Gorship]

Yuck. If this rings true, man elected himself because God chose based on his/her willingness to be saved. Kinda akin to a "merit system", imo.

Because a god that only saves those who he wants and sends the rest to eternal conscience torment at his own whim is so great?

merit system? When you recieve a gift of Christmas do you thank yourself for receiving the gift and opening it?

This thread frightens me. The grand difference between Baptist soteriology and Calvinism comes to a forefront right here.

either Jesus sacrifice was good for all, or it was only good for those He preselected at His own whim, the rest He doesn't care about and just chucks them into damnation. a kind of "spiritual abortion" if you will -- this is truly a terrifying thought.

 

[jonathanD]

The grand difference between Baptist soteriology and Calvinism...

Huh? Spurgeon wasn't a baptist? Neither was Judson or Carey? Who knew?

 

[Gorship]

Huh? Spurgeon wasn't a baptist? Neither was Judson or Carey? Who knew?

i know right

Edit: In terms of soteriology anyway.

 

[Iconoclast]

BaptistJG

Because a god that only saves those who he wants and sends the rest to eternal conscience torment at his own whim is so great?

You need to determine if you want the God of the bible or not.Where does the bible speak of God doing anything by a whim???
Why would you doubt that a Holy and Wise God acts in any way less then perfect and according to His plan?

This thread frightens me. The grand difference between Baptist soteriology and Calvinism comes to a forefront right here.

The difference is about those who trust God and obey ,and those who invent a god who does what they want him to do.

either Jesus sacrifice was good for all,

Good in what way? Does it save all it was intended for....or does it only save some? the salvation you speak of is only a potential salvation....the scriptural one says Jesus saves his people from sin. he does not try real hard and fail.....he saves all the Father gave to Him.

or it was only good for those He preselected at His own whim

,

This again is a profane statement when you look at it,as if the Biblical God is like a man. Election is a biblical fact.

the rest He doesn't care about and just chucks them into damnation. a kind of "spiritual abortion" if you will -- this is truly a terrifying thought.

This is unbiblical thought at best...

 

[webdog]

I have been thinking about this in view of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Is there a "potentiality" or an "actuality" to it? Is there an actualality(sp?) of being saved, or merely a chance?

Is faith required? If so, Jesus' death saved nobody...even the elect...apart from faith. The cross was the means to be redeemed.

 

[webdog]

Another way to answer the op, did the killing of the passover lamb in itself save all the firstborn...or did the blood have to be applied to the doorpost? This was a foreshadowing of Christ.

Any calvinists back in the day would he mourning their firstborn.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Another way to answer the op, did the killing of the passover lamb in itself save all the firstborn...or did the blood have to be applied to the doorpost? This was a foreshadowing of Christ.

Any calvinists back in the day would he mourning their firstborn.

Now that's funny right there!:laugh:

But I thought you knew that man did not have anything to do with putting the blood on the door post. Everyone sat in their house and God went door to door and put the blood on the posts.

Also have you read Calvenesis 22-23! Abraham didn't offer Isaac his son upon the alter by faith. It was all of God, Abraham did absolutely nothing.

In fact, you didn't even type your response out. Your mind had nothing to do with what you thought when planning what to write. Your fingers didn't actually touch the keyboard. You just THINK that your fingers had the ability to type something, you had nothing to do with what you typed.

Funny with Calvinists man has absolutely nothing to do in salvation, he doesn't have to repent, he does have to call on the name of the Lord, he just sits on the couch and God overcomes his will and presto. Yet AFTER he's saved, God can't prevent him from backsliding even though He is supposed to overcome their will to endure to the end by perseverance. The Calvinist has compatibilist freedom before salvation and libertarian freedom after salvation of which must be proven by WORKS.

The Calvinist is wholly inconsistent in their terms of determination. They love to jump on verses that APPEAR predeterministic, but then when they get to Ephesians 2:10 where it says God PREORDAINED THEIR WORKS, they don't apply the same meaning to their WORKS from preordination that they do to their SALVATION because if they were consistent, they would never sin again.

 

[convicted1]

Because a god that only saves those who he wants and sends the rest to eternal conscience torment at his own whim is so great?

merit system? When you recieve a gift of Christmas do you thank yourself for receiving the gift and opening it?

This thread frightens me. The grand difference between Baptist soteriology and Calvinism comes to a forefront right here.

either Jesus sacrifice was good for all, or it was only good for those He preselected at His own whim, the rest He doesn't care about and just chucks them into damnation. a kind of "spiritual abortion" if you will -- this is truly a terrifying thought.

Okay, explain this: God knew before every lost soul was created they would die lost....and He made them anyways. Why isn't that cruel, that they died lost, even after being offered salvation, they died, and Him passing over some and electing other is cruel? Either way, He knew they would eternally perish, and yet, He made them anyways. Please explain that.

 

[convicted1]

Another way to answer the op, did the killing of the passover lamb in itself save all the firstborn...or did the blood have to be applied to the doorpost? This was a foreshadowing of Christ.

Any calvinists back in the day would he mourning their firstborn.

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. If they hadn't slain the lamb or goat, there wouldn't have been any blood to put upon the doorpost to begin with. But, please expound further........