Actual statements by synergists

[Legionwrex]

The thing is, the hyper Calvinists (WBBC) are acting in ways consistent with their beliefs.

The synergists I quoted were stating things consistent with synergistic beliefs.

The only way you can justify using comments by Calvinists against Calvinists is by finding statements consistent with Calvinism (not hyper-Calvinism)

So take your best shot at making the truth that God freely saves sinners who deserve hell look bad.

Oh I believe God freely saves sinners, I just don't believe he Predestines their eternal destiny along with every action they make in life. And I must admit I am getting sick of this double talk from you. Whenever it fits to benefit you, you make comments like "God freely saves sinners", but you rarely tell the full truth of what you believe, that God also Predestines our fate and actions, because you know that that will make your arguments about believing in choice into a strawman.

You want statements consistent with Calvinism? John Calvin himself apparently believed in a form of double Predestination:

"Not all men are created with similar destiny but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated to life or to death" (John Calvin, Institutes, Book III, chapter 23.)

And If I recall you yourself created a forum talking about how God is responsible for our choices and actions, and we are only under the illusion that they are our own.

 

[FreeGrace2]

1) WBBC are hyper Calvinists, not Calvinists. Learn the difference

2) I document things synergists say because they say things that are consistent with synergism, thus shedding more light on synergism and it's implications and how it affects the rest of our thinking.

For example, typically in synergism people believe God is "hands off", leaves everything to human free will, and would never actually kill anyone because that would be a violation of the creature's free will. Hence the statement of one synergist who said that "God doesn't kill anyone, it's just the weather". Human autonomy is elevated so high in synergism that God can't even be credited for using the weather to kill his own creation, even though in the entire story of the flood, He did exactly that!

Thanks for more examples of why I am definitely NOT a synergist!! Such claims that God doesn't kill anyone is absurd on its face.

1 Chron 10:13,14 refutes that claim.

 

[Thekla]

For we are labourers together (synergoi) with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. 1 Corinthians 3:9

 

[Skala]

Thanks for more examples of why I am definitely NOT a synergist!! Such claims that God doesn't kill anyone is absurd on its face.

1 Chron 10:13,14 refutes that claim.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

[Skala]

Oh I believe God freely saves sinners, I just don't believe he Predestines their eternal destiny along with every action they make in life. And I must admit I am getting sick of this double talk from you. Whenever it fits to benefit you, you make comments like "God freely saves sinners", but you rarely tell the full truth of what you believe, that God also Predestines our fate and actions, because you know that that will make your arguments about believing in choice into a strawman.

So I take it you're an open theist then?

You want statements consistent with Calvinism? John Calvin himself apparently believed in a form of double Predestination:

"Not all men are created with similar destiny but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated to life or to death" (John Calvin, Institutes, Book III, chapter 23.)

So I take it you're an open theist then?

The reason I keep asking is because you must be an open theist, otherwise the logical conclusion is that this statement by Calvin applies to your theology, too, you just don't realize it.

Unless you deny that God knows the future, the bottom line is that God created people that he knew, if he created them, would end up in hell.

So, why did God create them, then? Can you give an answer that is both 1) Consistent with your theology and 2) that doesn't deny God's omniscience?

If God doesn't want anyone in hell, why did He create people that He knew would go to hell? He could have simply chosen to not create those hell-bound people, instead only creating people he knew would willingly cooperate with his grace and be saved. Then he'd have a 100% human race that is saved, nobody in hell, everyone wins. Isn't people not going to hell God's greatest goal, per your theology?

Being God, he could have easily given himself what he wanted.

And If I recall you yourself created a forum talking about how God is responsible for our choices and actions, and we are only under the illusion that they are our own.

Sorry, that wasn't me. Nor would I agree with it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Since what you have been posting doesn't fit my view, thanks for pointing out all the reasons I'm not a synergist.

Believing the gospel promise doesn't equate to synergism, and those who think so are simply wrong.

God provided the promise of salvation.

God provided the sacrifice for salvation.

God provides the gift of eternal life, which is salvation.

To accept what God promises isn't synergism.

Synergism is seen in the RCC, where they believe that man must "cooperate" with God, by taking part in the sacraments, etc. iow, man must do "his part" before God will save him. And there is no security in the RCC view.

Even in Calvinism, there is no security, really. Look at the Puritans, who were Calvinists. They perseverated over the issue of being "elect". Many fretted that they may not be one. Sad.

 

[Skala]

Even in Calvinism, there is no security, really. Look at the Puritans, who were Calvinists. They perseverated over the issue of being "elect". Many fretted that they may not be one. Sad.

So it's wrong to constantly be checking to make sure you are saved?

Doesn't 1st John tell us to test ourselves? And Peter?

 

[Thekla]

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work/katergazesthe* out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Philippians 2:12

kata - down/exactly according to, etc.
erga - work

 

[FreeGrace2]

So it's wrong to constantly be checking to make sure you are saved?

Not if one doesn't really believe they are. But for those who believe God's promise, there is NO REASON to "keep checking".

btw, what in the world would one keep checking for, in order to "make sure" one is saved?

Doesn't 1st John tell us to test ourselves? And Peter?

Not for salvation, of course. John's epistle begins with fellowship, not relationship. When we are in fellowship, filled with (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16), we cannot sin (1 Jn 3:9,18).

And Peter admonished his believing (saved, elect) audience to santify Christ AS Lord (1 Pet 3:15). If he were alive today, he'd have no part in the Lordship-salvation movement as preached by MacArthur.

 

[Hammster]

Not if one doesn't really believe they are. But for those who believe God's promise, there is NO REASON to "keep checking".

btw, what in the world would one keep checking for, in order to "make sure" one is saved?


Not for salvation, of course. John's epistle begins with fellowship, not relationship. When we are in fellowship, filled with (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16), we cannot sin (1 Jn 3:9,18).

And Peter admonished his believing (saved, elect) audience to santify Christ AS Lord (1 Pet 3:15). If he were alive today, he'd have no part in the Lordship-salvation movement as preached by MacArthur.

Therefore, brothers, make every effort to confirm your calling and election, because if you do these things you will never stumble. (2 Peter 1:10 HCSB)

 

[Legionwrex]

So I take it you're an open theist then?



So I take it you're an open theist then?

The reason I keep asking is because you must be an open theist, otherwise the logical conclusion is that this statement by Calvin applies to your theology, too, you just don't realize it.

Unless you deny that God knows the future, the bottom line is that God created people that he knew, if he created them, would end up in hell.

So, why did God create them, then? Can you give an answer that is both 1) Consistent with your theology and 2) that doesn't deny God's omniscience?

If God doesn't want anyone in hell, why did He create people that He knew would go to hell? He could have simply chosen to not create those hell-bound people, instead only creating people he knew would willingly cooperate with his grace and be saved. Then he'd have a 100% human race that is saved, nobody in hell, everyone wins. Isn't people not going to hell God's greatest goal, per your theology?

Being God, he could have easily given himself what he wanted.



Sorry, that wasn't me. Nor would I agree with it.

No, I'm not an open theist. Again, in my view, God ultimately gives the person the choice to choose of reject him. He doesn't Predestine their eternal fate on a whim, they make their choice free of God forcing them to choose one over the other. It is a big difference. So why does God still create them? Because he still can use them to express his Glory through Divine Justice. However that is their choice, God takes no pleasure in it, unlike Calvin who believes they were solely created for Hell.

I know for a fact you have that view. Having just dug through your dozens of forums, I will point you to your "The Illusion of a Gentleman God" forum, where you clearly agree with an article that says God controls human choices and actions.

This is ignoring all of the other times I have witnessed you voice your belief in it that are spread throughout various forums.

And I'm curious, sense you seem to have such a big problem with synergists, do you think synergists are saved? I have never gotten a straight answer from you or others whenever I ask this.

 

[Hammster]

No, I'm not an open theist. Again, in my view, God ultimately gives the person the choice to choose of reject him. He doesn't Predestine their eternal fate on a whim, they make their choice free of God forcing them to choose one over the other.

Calvinists believe the same thing.

It is a big difference. So why does God still create them? Because he still can use them to express his Glory through Divine Justice. However that is their choice, God takes no pleasure in it, unlike Calvin who believes they were solely created for Hell.

I don't think Calvinists believe people were created solely for hell.

I know for a fact you have that view. Having just dug through your dozens of forums, I will point you to your "The Illusion of a Gentleman God" forum, where you clearly agree with an article that says God controls human choices and actions.

Do you think God had any control over you typing that paragraph?

This is ignoring all of the other times I have witnessed you voice your belief in it that are spread throughout various forums.

And I'm curious, sense you seem to have such a big problem with synergists, do you think synergists are saved? I have never gotten a straight answer from you or others whenever I ask this.

I think Skala and I agree that salvation is by grace through faith, whether a synergist or monergist. That would also mean that just because someone says they are a Calvinist doesn't automatically mean they are saved.

 

[Skala]

Not if one doesn't really believe they are. But for those who believe God's promise, there is NO REASON to "keep checking".

Make your calling and election sure

The NT is full of encouragement to continually test yourself to see if you are truly saved or if you are deceived.

So, I don't think I'll take your advice. I believe the Bible.

 

[Skala]

No, I'm not an open theist. Again, in my view, God ultimately gives the person the choice to choose of reject him. He doesn't Predestine their eternal fate on a whim, they make their choice free of God forcing them to choose one over the other. It is a big difference. So why does God still create them? Because he still can use them to express his Glory through Divine Justice. However that is their choice, God takes no pleasure in it, unlike Calvin who believes they were solely created for Hell.

So, God creates people he knows will go to hell, for his own glory?

Sounds like the very thing you seem to oppose.

The thing is, you affirm that God creates people to go to hell. God, knowing that "Bob" will reject him, if he creates Bob, still decided to create Bob anyways. He could have not created Bob, sparing Bob the fate. But instead, he chose to create Bob, sealing his fate.

This is why, as James White says, the only consistent Arminian is an Open Theist. The only way you can deny that God creates people to go to hell is by affirming that God didn't know the fates of those he was about to create.

What drives us bonkers is that you think this is only true to Calvinism, or an exclusive dilemma for Calvinism. It's not. It's a fact all non-open theists must face.

I know for a fact you have that view. Having just dug through your dozens of forums, I will point you to your "The Illusion of a Gentleman God" forum, where you clearly agree with an article that says God controls human choices and actions.

Of course God controls everything. That's what the Bible teaches. It shouldn't even be up for discussion. God is the one manually pumping the heart of every single person on the planet. Everyone is in His hands, at all times.

And I'm curious, sense you seem to have such a big problem with synergists, do you think synergists are saved? I have never gotten a straight answer from you or others whenever I ask this.

Of course I think synergists are saved. I'm sorry if you got the impression that I don't think they are.

I have no problem fellowshiping with you or any other synergist. Some of my best friends are synergists. We get along great.

We disagree why people are saved, of course. I believe if God had not chosen some, heaven would be empty. My synergist friends believe that God just happened to get lucky that some people were wise enough to cooperate with him.

But we both believe the same end result: believers are saved.

Where we differ is on the question of "Why" there are believers in the first place. My answer is because of free grace. My friends' answer is because of free will.

We arrive at the same conclusion, but take different routes to get there. I think my view gives God more credit and more glory and gives us more reason to worship him. If he hadn't chosen us, we would end up in hell, because our nature is to reject him.

In other words, if He hadn't chosen me, I would have never chosen him. That is the boast of a Calvinist.

The non-Calvinist, to be consistent with his theology, can only say the opposite: If I hadn't chosen God, he wouldn't have chosen me (conditional election)

Does that sit right with you? It doesn't sit right with me.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Therefore, brothers, make every effort to confirm your calling and election, because if you do these things you will never stumble. (2 Peter 1:10 HCSB)

What do you think this verse means? To just throw it out there doesn't help anyone.

 

[Hammster]

What do you think this verse means? To just throw it out there doesn't help anyone.

I think it means that we should make our calling and election sure so that we don't stumble.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Make your calling and election sure

The NT is full of encouragement to continually test yourself to see if you are truly saved or if you are deceived.

That is your opinion. The encouragements are to encourage believers (saved people) to demonstrate their faith so others will see their faith.

All the encouragements deal with works. That's NOT how to check to see if you're saved. You're saved IF you believe the promise of God about eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ. IF you've believed His promise, then you SHOULD be producing works. IF there is no fruit, the warnings of divine discipline and loss of rewards applies to you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think it means that we should make our calling and election sure so that we don't stumble.

That wasn't at all helpful. That's what the verse SAYS. What does "stumble" mean to you? Does it mean loss of salvation, or something else?

And how do YOU make your calling and election sure? Specifically.

Answering these questions would be helpful.

 

[Hammster]

That wasn't at all helpful. That's what the verse SAYS. What does "stumble" mean to you? Does it mean loss of salvation, or something else?

Since I've actually read the passage, stumbling would mean being useless and unfruitful. It would appear that if someone is constantly useless and unfruitful, they aren't saved

And how do YOU make your calling and election sure? Specifically.

Answering these questions would be helpful.

Here's what Peter said:

His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness. By these He has given us very great and precious promises, so that through them you may share in the divine nature, escaping the corruption that is in the world because of evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with goodness, goodness with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with godliness, godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they will keep you from being useless or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The person who lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten the cleansing from his past sins. Therefore, brothers, make every effort to confirm your calling and election, because if you do these things you will never stumble. For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly supplied to you. (2 Peter 1:3-11 HCSB)

Do you need further explanation?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Since I've actually read the passage, stumbling would mean being useless and unfruitful. It would appear that if someone is constantly useless and unfruitful, they aren't saved

Why would it "appear" they aren't saved?

Here's what Peter said:

His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness. By these He has given us very great and precious promises, so that through them you may share in the divine nature, escaping the corruption that is in the world because of evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with goodness, goodness with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with godliness, godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they will keep you from being useless or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The person who lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten the cleansing from his past sins. Therefore, brothers, make every effort to confirm your calling and election, because if you do these things you will never stumble. For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly supplied to you. (2 Peter 1:3-11 HCSB)

Do you need further explanation?

No, but many sure do. He was not talking about getting into heaven, but receiving an entrance "richly supplied" to those who don't stumble.