The Synergism Safe House

[OzSpen]

Are we not all synergists?

Do we all not desire a closer relationship with God?

Athanasius made the statement that essential forms the heart of Orthodoxy - That God became human so that humanity can become God. Once this is accepted then we spend the rest of our lives in that work.

So what is your understanding of synergism?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The Synergism Safe Haven


Members who choose to participate in this safe-house thread should believe in Synergism, that man is free to cooperate with Divine grace to be regenerated. This thread is for discussing Soteriology from a Synergistic point of view.
​

Fellowship posts from all members are welcome. Members who hold to Monergism may not intentionally disrupt this thread.
​

This safe house thread is specifically for those members who believe in Synergism.
​

The safe house is for discussion and not for debate. Debate is defined as: "Engaging in argument by discussing opposing points."
​

If a topic turns into a debate then staff will split the debate off into a new thread.

​

Members who do not hold the Synergism view may post in fellowship only.
​

No posts from this safe house may be quoted in other threads or used to start discussion threads in the main Soteriology forum.
​

The CF site-wide rules and Soteriology Rules do apply to this thread.​

This is NOT a safe house. If it were, you would not allow somebody from the Monergism Safe House to take information from this thread to denigrate the point of view of the synergist who posted it.

it seems that you have allowed this "Synergism Safe House" to be violated. It is NOT a "safe house" when you allow others to take from the synergism thread to denigrate what somebody has written on the synergism thread, and the synergistic person does not have the right of reply in the "monergism safe house".

Please don't lead me to believe it is a "safe house" when you have no intention of maintaining this to be a synergistic safe house. I don't appreciate someone "stealing" from the synergism thread and posting in the monergism thread without the chance of discussion or rebuttal.

Besides, why are you, a supporter of monergism (as evidenced by your participation in the "monergism safe house"), starting a thread about a "synergism safe house"? Sounds contradictory and provocative to me!

Oz

 

[Super Kal]

Hey Oz, why did you come in here to stir trouble?... I can only speak for myself, but I don't go into the monergism thread and start things like this, and make trouble. I respect monergists enough to not invade that thread. This thread was made to let synergists relax and cool off... Show some courtesy, please. The reason there aren't many synergists/Arminians around is because they chose to leave this subforum and go to other forums. There are a few here still.

Concerning books, I have no desire to read the works of a Calvinist on a monergist. At the least. I may buy the counterpart to Roger Olson's newest book Against Calvinism, but don't get your hopes up... From what I've read, I've seen more confusion from Calvinists when they discuss Arminianism than I do Arminians discussing Calvinism.

And for the record, I do read books... I currently have Thomas Oden, Adam Clarke, and Roger Olson, but books for me are hard to come by because 1) I don't have the time TJ read things other than the bible unless I can get a PDF version of it and 2) since I'm saving up for a wedding, I have little to no money for expenses like that.

I will, though be getting Roger Olson's book Against Calvinism when it is released, and when I have the time and money, John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity, and a few others as well when I have the chance

 

[OzSpen]

Hey Oz, why did you come in here to stir trouble?... I can only speak for myself, but I don't go into the monergism thread and start things like this, and make trouble. I respect monergists enough to not invade that thread. This thread was made to let synergists relax and cool off... Show some courtesy, please. The reason there aren't many synergists/Arminians around is because they chose to leave this subforum and go to other forums. There are a few here still.

My intent was never to cause trouble. Unfairness needs to be highlighted. When the "monergism safe house" is used to challenge a poster from the "synergism safe house" and there is no right of reply for the synergist in the monergism thread, it is called injustice and should be called for what it is.

Oz

 

[Knee V]

As I (as well as all the Orthodox) do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity (and therefore in none of TULIP) I find the whole argument of "what comes first - faith or regeneration?" to be moot. One could therefore call me a "synergist", since the whole Christian life, from start to finish, is mankind participating in the life of God.

 

[Super Kal]

Then... Keep in mind, this is just my humble opinion... That synergist should stay out of the "monergism safe house" thread.

These threads are here for those specific reasons... To be safe houses

 

[OzSpen]

Then... Keep in mind, this is just my humble opinion... That synergist should stay out of the "monergism safe house" thread.

These threads are here for those specific reasons... To be safe houses

As I have shown by the quote from the "synergism safe house" appearing in the "monergism safe house", these are not "safe houses".

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I will, though be getting Roger Olson's book Against Calvinism when it is released, and when I have the time and money, John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity, and a few others as well when I have the chance

Have you read the preview of Roger Olson's new book, Against Calvinism?

Oz

 

[Philothei]

As I (as well as all the Orthodox) do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity (and therefore in none of TULIP) I find the whole argument of "what comes first - faith or regeneration?" to be moot. One could therefore call me a "synergist", since the whole Christian life, from start to finish, is mankind participating in the life of God.

Standing right up there with y'all. I am a synergist although in EO there are no camps... We do beleive like Knee-V said "participating in the life of God".

Further more we prefer to leave that part up to God since there is mystery in Salvation. We know what is revealed we cannot speculate on how exactly we are saved. We have to live according to His will and follow Him. We have to carry our Cross like He told us to do. It is a bumpy road and narrow gate for sure but with Christ in our side the road is paved and all

 

[Philothei]

Are we not all synergists?

Do we all not desire a closer relationship with God?

Athanasius made the statement that essential forms the heart of Orthodoxy - That God became human so that humanity can become God. Once this is accepted then we spend the rest of our lives in that work.

 

[Super Kal]

Roger Olson's book Against Calvinism is out now...
If you haven't picked it up yet, I recommend you do

 

[L.J.]

ok, since this is suppose to be a safe house I'm hoping I can have this question answered without being called a heretic. My wife and I visited a church last weekend (Mosaic Gulf Coast). We like the way the preacher preaches, like everything about the church. But the one thing is that the preacher is a calvinist (5 pointer). He says that this is an open hand of fellowship subject for him. He has no problem with having fellowship with synergists. He does say that if preaching on predestination that he will preach how he feels but will not go out of the way. I listened to alot of his sermons online and only on a couple of sermons did he slightly mentions mongerism. He does have "close-handed" issues like the deity of Christ and the validity of the Bible.

btw, I posed this question in what I thought was a friendly chat room and was jumped on by a couple of calvinist for being a heretic. I said I wasn't in there for debate just wanted to hear someone else's opinion. Boy did I get it.
L.J.

 

[Philothei]

ok, since this is suppose to be a safe house I'm hoping I can have this question answered without being called a heretic. My wife and I visited a church last weekend (Mosaic Gulf Coast). We like the way the preacher preaches, like everything about the church. But the one thing is that the preacher is a calvinist (5 pointer). He says that this is an open hand of fellowship subject for him. He has no problem with having fellowship with synergists. He does say that if preaching on predestination that he will preach how he feels but will not go out of the way. I listened to alot of his sermons online and only on a couple of sermons did he slightly mentions mongerism. He does have "close-handed" issues like the deity of Christ and the validity of the Bible.

btw, I posed this question in what I thought was a friendly chat room and was jumped on by a couple of calvinist for being a heretic. I said I wasn't in there for debate just wanted to hear someone else's opinion. Boy did I get it.
L.J.

I am a synergist but come from an EO perspective and tradition. I do not understand the problem with what do you mean "he has "close handed" issues like the deity of Christ and the validity of the Bible? He does not believe in Christ as God? or the Son of God?
Also he does not accept the Bible as a valid canon for the faith? No sure what you mean here....
In both cases then he must not be orthodox in his Christian views?

just a thought ...

BTW I think if he is not outright against the synergists I do not know if that would be a problem...From what I heard many graduates from the seminaries in the protestant churches graduate believing in predestination and it fades away as they work in parishes as pastors...That is what I heard though not what I have seen with my own eyes

 

[OzSpen]

ok, since this is suppose to be a safe house I'm hoping I can have this question answered without being called a heretic. My wife and I visited a church last weekend (Mosaic Gulf Coast). We like the way the preacher preaches, like everything about the church. But the one thing is that the preacher is a calvinist (5 pointer). He says that this is an open hand of fellowship subject for him. He has no problem with having fellowship with synergists. He does say that if preaching on predestination that he will preach how he feels but will not go out of the way. I listened to alot of his sermons online and only on a couple of sermons did he slightly mentions mongerism. He does have "close-handed" issues like the deity of Christ and the validity of the Bible.

btw, I posed this question in what I thought was a friendly chat room and was jumped on by a couple of calvinist for being a heretic. I said I wasn't in there for debate just wanted to hear someone else's opinion. Boy did I get it.
L.J.

L.J.

I have major issues with and against limited atonement as I do not find it to be a biblical doctrine. I have an article refuting it on my webpage but it is off air at the moment as it is on my son's server and he is moving house. If you want, please send me a private message with your contact details and I'll email my article.

Here is one refutation of limited atonement. By the way, John Calvin did not believe in limited atonement.

However, I find unconditional election, limited atonement,and irresistible grace to be a Reformed package that oppose a synergistic approach to salvation.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[L.J.]

Philothei,
"closed hand fellowship" means those issues which he feels he cannot fellowship with that person. ie, if you don't believe in the deity of Christ, we cannot fellowship. if you don't believe that the bible is true, we cannot fellowship.
"open hand fellowship" would be different views of salvation, if one believes in a literal hell (which he does), is it ok to drink alcohol (not talking about drunkenness) and so forth.

Oz,
Man I really like your posts. Been a fan of yours for a long time. Didn't realize you had a site, as soon as it comes back up email me. I'll message you with my email.
I am with you, I believe Jesus died for all, that we can choose not to follow Him and I know this is controversial view, but we can forfeit our salvation.
My wife and I had a good long discussion this morning. There is a very nice Nazarene church just down the road. I think we will visit them Sunday.
Thanks for ya'lls replies,
L.J.

 

[OzSpen]

Philothei,
Oz,
Man I really like your posts. Been a fan of yours for a long time. Didn't realize you had a site, as soon as it comes back up email me. I'll message you with my email.
I am with you, I believe Jesus died for all, that we can choose not to follow Him and I know this is controversial view, but we can forfeit our salvation.
My wife and I had a good long discussion this morning. There is a very nice Nazarene church just down the road. I think we will visit them Sunday.
Thanks for ya'lls replies,
L.J.

Thanks so much for your kind words. If you provide me with your email address in a private message, I'll email a few attachments until my homepage is up and running.

Can I urge you to be a Berean and examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11) as there is so much doctrine contrary to sound Christian teaching out there.

Even with the Nazarenes, I have found here in Australia that they are a mixed bag and can be extreme Arminians in some of their views, e.g. losing salvation by regular sinning. Some are moving into theological liberalism. I was reading some online material recently regarding some teachers at a Nazarene College in the eastern USA who were writing up some less than orthodox material. Yet there are other Nazarene folks who are soundly orthodox and I recommend their churches highly. Being a Berean is the key.

In Christ, Oz

 

[L.J.]

Oz,
I don't have enough posts yet to message you. But I'm close and when I get it I'll message you.
I'm very aware of the Nazarene's. The only big issue I have is they believe in infant baptism. I have to choose my battles I guess.
I do look at myself as a Wesleyan Arminian.

P/s I did get your message. As soon as I get to 15 I'll message you back

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,
I don't have enough posts yet to message you. But I'm close and when I get it I'll message you.
I'm very aware of the Nazarene's. The only big issue I have is they believe in infant baptism. I have to choose my battles I guess.
I do look at myself as a Wesleyan Arminian.

P/s I did get your message. As soon as I get to 15 I'll message you back

The Nazarenes in my part of Australia baptise believers by immersion and they dedicate babies (not baptise them). However, my checking online indicates that there are some Nazarenes who baptise infants and others who baptise believers.

I also support believer's baptism (as in Matt. 28:19-20, etc.).

In Christ, Oz

 

[L.J.]

Thanks so much for your kind words. If you provide me with your email address in a private message, I'll email a few attachments until my homepage is up and running.

Can I urge you to be a Berean and examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11) as there is so much doctrine contrary to sound Christian teaching out there.

Even with the Nazarenes, I have found here in Australia that they are a mixed bag and can be extreme Arminians in some of their views, e.g. losing salvation by regular sinning. Some are moving into theological liberalism. I was reading some online material recently regarding some teachers at a Nazarene College in the eastern USA who were writing up some less than orthodox material. Yet there are other Nazarene folks who are soundly orthodox and I recommend their churches highly. Being a Berean is the key.

In Christ, Oz

funny thing how you said that some Nazarene's teach about losing salvation by regular sinning. While I do believe one can forfeit their salvation, I don't think it's as easy as some may think. Here is my reasoning...
Notice how Jesus likens our relationship as a marriage covenant? He is the Bridesgroom and we are the bride. Well as far as my earthly marriage covenant, I love my wife. While there are things that I can do to break the covenant, I love her so I can't imagine doing those things. I don't keep myself up at night worried every detail on how I could mess up and she would stop loving me.

 

[OzSpen]

funny thing how you said that some Nazarene's teach about losing salvation by regular sinning. While I do believe one can forfeit their salvation, I don't think it's as easy as some may think. Here is my reasoning...
Notice how Jesus likens our relationship as a marriage covenant? He is the Bridesgroom and we are the bride. Well as far as my earthly marriage covenant, I love my wife. While there are things that I can do to break the covenant, I love her so I can't imagine doing those things. I don't keep myself up at night worried every detail on how I could mess up and she would stop loving me.

I'm a classical Arminian in my understanding of losing salvation, by which I mean that there is biblical evidence (warning passages) that one can lose salvation through apostasy (e.g. Heb. 6:4-6). I have a detailed exposition of this passage that is on my homepage, but that page won't be up and running again for about a week or so as my son moves to a different ISP and my page is on his server.

John 3:16 is a popular and interesting passage in that the verbal, believes, in "whoever believes" (ESV) is in the Greek a present tense, active voice, participle. This means that the "whoever" or "all" who believe will continue to believe to attain eternal life. That's the meaning of the Greek present tense - continue believing. So the meaning of "whoever believes" is "whoever continues to believe).

Thus eternal life is guaranteed for those who continue to believe. Eternal life is not for those who used to believe and no longer believe in Christ. It is possible to apostasise after believing and then believe no more - thus causing a person to be lost again.

That's my understanding of the Greek present tense participle I have referred to, in John 3:16.

In Christ, Oz