Questions for Synergists

[guuila]

I am against Calvinism and you are against Arminianism.

And?

This thread doesn't hinge on whether I answer or not.

No, but it's tiring and counter-productive when you continually play the "let me think more about that" card only to never think more about it, and come back to thread after thread repeating the same arguments over and over. I'm going to hold you to it this time.

 

[janxharris]

Do you think you could let us know your conclusion this time? You seem to do this a lot. Then you find a new thread and regurgitate the same ol' anti-Calvinistic rhetoric.

Okay, you are right - I have been on too many threads and don't always get back to all of them...

 

[janxharris]

And?



No, but it's tiring and counter-productive when you continually play the "let me think more about that" card only to never think more about it, and come back to thread after thread repeating the same arguments over and over. I'm going to hold you to it this time.

Ok.

 

[janxharris]

Not at all. Now you've confessed yourself an Arminian you must admit to having God look down the tunnel of time to see who would believe and elect them. If this is the case, He could look down the tunnel of time, see who would WILLINGLY choose Him, and create only them. Job done. No unbelievers to condemn and free will unimpaired?

I think the question is a fine one crimsonleaf.

I am assuming that you are talking about God looking at a simulation of creation that precedes the actual real physical one. If so, would it still be possible for God (in the simulation) to say such words as:
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
(Genesis 2:16,17)

In the simulation there would not actually be anything resulting in death.

Would Paul have been able to say:
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 6:23)

 

[motherprayer]

Ermergerd.

I am trying to learn here. Where is the EDJAMACATION?!

 

[not right now]

I hope this thread doesn't get locked. The OP asked all the questions I've always wanted answered.

 

[janxharris]

"Truth cannot be spoken without love, for without love there IS no Truth, regardless of how accurate the words may be."

And would you say that there is no love without free will?

 

[motherprayer]

And would you say that there is no love without free will?

Um. I'm not edjamacated enough to answer that question. I don't know. I believe in the truth of the statement in my sig though

Funny, that statement gets brought up SO often. I wonder why.

 

[guuila]

And would you say that there is no love without free will?

I seriously cannot believe you are still attacking this straw man. I cannot count the number of times I have explained free will to you.

 

[janxharris]

I seriously cannot believe you are still attacking this straw man. I cannot count the number of times I have explained free will to you.

I am not attacking anyone griff. I was just asking a question. That is all.

 

[travelah]

It is usually the synergist's contention that the following are true:

-God is doing everything He can to keep people out of hell
-God wishes that every single human being escape hell and end up in heaven
-God treats everyone perfectly equally for the sake of fairness, regarding their salvation

That is never the synergists contention. Let's play this deceptive game with you.

It is usually the Calvinist's contention that the following are true:

-God is doing everything He can to send most babies to hell
-God wishes that most human beings are cast into hell and kept out of heaven
-God is partial in how he treats people and is unfair in his dealing with most of mankind.

 

[travelah]

Not at all. Now you've confessed yourself an Arminian you must admit to having God look down the tunnel of time to see who would believe and elect them.

That is an old Adrian Rogers position and not representative of Arminian thought. God's omniscience discards any notion of God having to peer down through time to do anything.

 

[guuila]

I am not attacking anyone griff. I was just asking a question. That is all.

I didn't say you were attacking anyone. I said you're attacking a straw man.

 

[guuila]

-God is doing everything He can to send most babies to hell

Just curious - how do babies get saved in your position? You're the one who insists that an autonomous free will decision is necessary. So how do babies do that?

 

[not right now]

Before this thread gets too far off, I hope more people will address the 4th question in the OP:

4) Speaking of fairness, if God desperately wishes everyone would be saved, why does He allow such diverse situations in the human race? For example, some Americans are born in the Bible belt where there is a church on every corner, access to TV channels where the gospel is proclaimed, access to people in their neighbourhoods and schools and work places who are Christians, for the possibility of interacting with those Christians and receiving the gospel message or seeing the Lord work the lives of those people as a powerful testimony to the fact that God does indeed change lives.

Other people are born in remote jungle tribes who have no idea who Jesus is, no access to missionaries, no TV channels, etc. The American person in our example lives a comfortable life so he has plenty of time to sit and ponder whether there is truth to the Bible's claims. The other person in the jungle doesn't even know what the Bible is, much less have time to sit around pondering such things, as he is more concerned with surviving and drinking fresh water. In fact, if he came across a Bible, it might not even be in his language.

Is that fair? Did God truly give the same chance and opportunity to these two people?

 

[bling]

It is usually the synergist's contention that the following are true:

-God is doing everything He can to keep people out of hell
-God wishes that every single human being escape hell and end up in heaven
-God treats everyone perfectly equally for the sake of fairness, regarding their salvation

If those are all true, I have some questions for my synergist brothers and sisters:

Good

1) God foreknew whether every single person in the race would believe or not, before he created them. For example, God knew that if he created Bob, Bob would never believe and end up in hell. Why did God create Bob, then? If God doesn't want any human being to end up in hell, why didn't God only create those human beings he foreknew would willingly believe? That way, he'd have an entire human race of willing believers, and nobody in hell.

Those individuals that live for a while and do not go to heaven, fulfill a lessor objective of helping those that will go to heaven to make those free will choice to accept God’s help (charity). Think about it like this: would it be a humbling experience to be born into a world where everyone went to heaven or would that be somewhat of a prideful position (heaven is your birth right). You have to remember why humans spend time on earth in the first place (our objective while here) and see that removing the option of hell, would not help us to freely choose to humbly accept God’s charity.

2) Why do some people die earlier than others? Some people die at age 15 in tragic car accidents, before they had a chance to give the gospel some consideration and submit to Jesus. However, other people live until nearly 100 years of age, and more. Is that fair? Why didn't God give those two people an equal opportunity? He can easily extend the lives of all human beings so that they live the maximum amount of time in order to make the all important decision of turning to Jesus.

Again, what helps willing humans to fulfill their earthly objective? If no one died before 100 years, would that encourage people to be serious about the choices while their young? Does the fact that we could die tomorrow, help influence our decisions today? Does the fact other could die tomorrow help us in serving them today?

When a person has been given all the opportunities needed to make the choice to accept and reach the point that they will never accept (God can know this) they take on a lesser objective.

3) (This question is aimed at synergists who believe one can lose his/her salvation) Since God is in control of when we live or die, if you can lose your salvation, why doesn't God kill you during the time you are in the "saved state"? Isn't He doing everything he can do to keep you out of hell?

This is the best question you asked. It is similar to why do saved Christians continue to live on earth.

First and foremost: You do not “lose” your salvation, but you can very intentional give it up, like Esau gave up his birthright.

This also has to do with the way God know what we will do: God of the future can know all past free will choices man made and send that information back to himself in our past, but those free will choices we made were made and if God prevented them (any which way) then they were not our choices. What you are asking is for God to change history, since for God in the future it is all history.

It is a privilege and honor to allow the Holy Spirit to work through and with us while here on earth, so we should take joy in this partnership (hardship). If while here on earth we quench the Spirit, take pride in making our own choices, seeking selfish type love to the point we do not want or like unselfish Love, we can chose to give up God’s Love, but it is still our choice.

4) Speaking of fairness, if God desperately wishes everyone would be saved, why does He allow such diverse situations in the human race? For example, some Americans are born in the Bible belt where there is a church on every corner, access to TV channels where the gospel is proclaimed, access to people in their neighbourhoods and schools and work places who are Christians, for the possibility of interacting with those Christians and receiving the gospel message or seeing the Lord work the lives of those people as a powerful testimony to the fact that God does indeed change lives.

Does that situation make for Christ like people that sacrificially, totally unselfishly serve others? Or would one of the small communities in Communist China that has a small poor house church with all 20 member showing true Christianity (totally unselfish sacrificial Love at great risk of bodily harm), be a better place?

Just because a person call themselves a “Christian” does not mean they are saved and unsaved people calling themselves Christians (hypocrites) might do a lot more harm than good in helping the unbeliever to become a true believer?

Other people are born in remote jungle tribes who have no idea who Jesus is, no access to missionaries, no TV channels, etc. The American person in our example lives a comfortable life so he has plenty of time to sit and ponder whether there is truth to the Bible's claims. The other person in the jungle doesn't even know what the Bible is, much less have time to sit around pondering such things, as he is more concerned with surviving and drinking fresh water. In fact, if he came across a Bible, it might not even be in his language.

Do you really believe Americans are sitting around: “pondering whether there is truth to the Bible's claims”? That is not the America I live in.

When and under what situation did the prodigal son come to his senses?

God is right there beside both the person in the jungle and the American watching inappropriate content, so which one is more likely to come to his sense look at where he is and where he is going and seek a change (maybe even “humbly” turn to his creator wanting His help)?

Is that fair? Did God truly give the same chance and opportunity to these two people?

Yes

Ask any missionary and they will tell you there are huge amounts of people groups that have never heard the name of Jesus. Not only in uncivilized parts of the world, but in civilized parts, too.

So we as Christians have tons of opportunity in this life to grow our Love through allowing the Spirit to work through us helping others?

In some countries, Christianity is illegal. Do Chinese people have the same chance as Americans? Americans can go to a Christian church freely to ask questions about Jesus and ponder eternal, spiritual things. Certain countries in Asia, not so much. Is that really equal and fair?

The underground Church in China is growing more and faster true Christian than maybe anywhere else in the world today. The best estimates are coming at or above 100 million Christians in the unground church. Does severe persecution of Christians help or hurt in the spread of Christianity (look at the first three centuries)?

5) More on fairness: Both angels and humans are guilty for sin. God provided a salvation plan for humans, but none for angels. There is no plan of redemption for fallen angels.

Is that fair?

Yes.

Angels are heavenly spiritual beings, with God physically in their presence.

We someday will be “like” angels, so was there a time angels were like humans?

If you sin after you have gone to heaven what will happen?

 

[bling]

Before this thread gets too far off, I hope more people will address the 4th question in the OP:

I did in post 36.

 

[AndOne]

Just curious - how do babies get saved in your position? You're the one who insists that an autonomous free will decision is necessary. So how do babies do that?

Good question.

 

[Skala]

That is never the synergists contention. Let's play this deceptive game with you.

It is usually the Calvinist's contention that the following are true:

-God is doing everything He can to send most babies to hell
-God wishes that most human beings are cast into hell and kept out of heaven
-God is partial in how he treats people and is unfair in his dealing with most of mankind.

None of those are actually tenets of the Calvinist position.

But nice deflection attempt.

If the three proposed statements aren't contentions of the Arminian position, can you explain what should be in their place or how they are inaccurate?

 

[crimsonleaf]

I think the question is a fine one crimsonleaf.

I am assuming that you are talking about God looking at a simulation of creation that precedes the actual real physical one. If so, would it still be possible for God (in the simulation) to say such words as:
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
(Genesis 2:16,17)

No, I'm assuming He's looking down the same real, actual, bona fide time tunnel He looks down (according to you and your Arminian friends) to determine who believes and therefore who He saves.

I have absolutely no idea where this "simulation" idea comes from, unless it's your latent Molinism.

I have ignored the rest of your questions as they've become moot following my correction above.

So, having admitted that my question was a "fine one" why have you made no attempt to answer it?