Questions for Synergists

Status
Not open for further replies.

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Funny. You like to take that verse out of context to prop up your free will-ism (oh by the way, will waiting for you to choose the most convincing verse for prev. grace and exegete it... guess I shouldn't hold my breath) and then demand that God isn't willing that any person go to hell, even though God creates multitudes of people who he knows will never believe. That is where your system has a monstrous hold in it.
I have NOT taken 2 Peter 3:9 out of context. It is just that you do not want to believe it as it refutes your view.

As to the verses of prevenient grace, I have provided them for you in a systematic theology format. I don't plan on repeating them and your demand for me to exegete some verses to try to persuade you is as promising as a ship trying to float on dry land.

That God is willing for all to be saved and that only some respond to that salvation is not defined as God creating "multitudes of people who he knows will never believe". It is God creating all people with the free will to choose for or against God, for or against Jesus ("Choose this day whom you will serve"). God foreknows those who will and will not respond for saving faith. That is not an indictment on God for people who do not respond to the Gospel.
 
Upvote 0
C

crimsonleaf

Guest
As to the verses of prevenient grace, I have provided them for you in a systematic theology format. I don't plan on repeating them and your demand for me to exegete some verses to try to persuade you is as promising as a ship trying to float on dry land.
Every time you bring up these verses I'm going to have to remind you that I've addressed them and you've ignored my response, with the exception of one point and you were wrong on that.

So let's start with trying to float that particular ship shall we?
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Oz, we're going back to baby steps here too, but would you agree that all men deserve hell and will GET hell without salvation from God?
We are talking about the means of obtaining salvation. But you only want to discuss it within your framework of a deterministic God who unconditionally elects a minority of people and chooses to damn the rest of them. Why? To use your language, they "deserve hell". That does not sound like the loving, gracious God who has stated:
He [Jesus Christ the righteous] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2 ESV).
God's righteousness and justice are equivalent and this one and only just God has provided Jesus as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Get it? The WHOLE WORLD. That's Bible, but your system will not allow this verse to gain entry.
 
Upvote 0
G

guuila

Guest
I have NOT taken 2 Peter 3:9 out of context. It is just that you do not want to believe it as it refutes your view.

Since you obviously hate doing exegesis, I guess I'll do your work for you. That seems to be the trend around here. Synergist quotes some verse out of context and the monergist has to do the work to show that the synergist is misusing the verse. Sigh. Oh well. Hopefully this clears up your confusion:

1. Who is Peter writing to?

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder... (2 Peter 3:1 ESV)

Ok so he's writing to Christians.

2. What is the context of chapter 3 and verse 9? What is the topic Peter is addressing?

They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (2 Peter 3:4-7 ESV)

Peter is addressing the fact that scoffers will come along and question the 2nd coming of Christ. But Peter reassures them, the Christians he's writing to, that the Lord isn't slow to fulfill his promise:

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:8-9 ESV)

Ok so Peter is telling the beloved, Christians, that God is patient toward them by saying "The Lord... is patient toward YOU... who? God's elect. Peter told them this is the 2nd letter he's writing to them. In the first letter to them, he says:

To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (1 Peter 1:1-2 ESV)

So God is patient toward you/beloved/Christians/God's elect, not wishing any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. The whole point is, God is patient towards his elect, not wishing any should perish, but that all of his elect should reach repentance. God is delaying the 2nd coming of Christ until all of his elect reach repentance.

But somehow, you want us to believe Peter is saying that God is not wishing that any person at all perish and that every single human being should reach repentance? How does that convince the Christians he's writing to that God is patient toward them? Let's see how that works:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any person on the face of the earth perish, but that every single human being should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9 ESV)

How does that show patience toward the Christians he's writing to? It doesn't. Furthermore, if God truly isn't wishing that any perish, He better wait until the last human being he creates dies to maximize the amount of people who will be in heaven. Then, when there are no people left, he can send Christ! Yeah, your interpretation doesn't make any sense in context. It makes much more sense to say God is patient toward His elect, not wishing any OF THEM perish, but that they all reach repentance.

As to the verses of prevenient grace, I have provided them for you in a systematic theology format.

More like a shotgun approach format.

I don't plan on repeating them and your demand for me to exegete some verses to try to persuade you is as promising as a ship trying to float on dry land.

Fine with me. I don't have any reason to believe you're capable of exegesis anyway since I've never once seen it from you. You act like we're supposed to let you quote verses and just take your word that they mean what you say they mean. Not gonna work here bud!

That God is willing for all to be saved and that only some respond to that salvation is not defined as God creating "multitudes of people who he knows will never believe". It is God creating all people with the free will to choose for or against God, for or against Jesus ("Choose this day whom you will serve"). God foreknows those who will and will not respond for saving faith. That is not an indictment on God for people who do not respond to the Gospel.

If God knows Bob won't believe, and God creates Bob anyway, Bob can never believe. I'm sorry you're not able to see this.
 
Upvote 0
G

guuila

Guest
Every time you bring up these verses I'm going to have to remind you that I've addressed them and you've ignored my response, with the exception of one point and you were wrong on that.

So let's start with trying to float that particular ship shall we?

Yep. I witnessed it. Oz did ignore you. You put in a lot of effort to respond to that post and it was completely ignored.
 
Upvote 0
G

guuila

Guest
We are talking about the means of obtaining salvation. But you only want to discuss it within your framework of a deterministic God who unconditionally elects a minority of people and chooses to damn the rest of them. Why? To use your language, they "deserve hell". That does not sound like the loving, gracious God who has stated:

God's righteousness and justice are equivalent and this one and only just God has provided Jesus as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Get it? The WHOLE WORLD. That's Bible, but your system will not allow this verse to gain entry.

What does propitiation mean?
 
Upvote 0
C

crimsonleaf

Guest
We are talking about the means of obtaining salvation. But you only want to discuss it within your framework of a deterministic God who unconditionally elects a minority of people and chooses to damn the rest of them. Why? To use your language, they "deserve hell". That does not sound like the loving, gracious God who has stated:

God's righteousness and justice are equivalent and this one and only just God has provided Jesus as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Get it? The WHOLE WORLD. That's Bible, but your system will not allow this verse to gain entry.
You take a perfectly simple question from me and your presuppositional bias won't allow you to answer it because it's "within your framework". It's not in any framework, so lets pretend the question was asked by a 5 year old Muslim - "would you agree that all men deserve hell and will GET hell without salvation from God?"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
G

guuila

Guest
To take on the punishment or judgment on for another.

And it means that God's wrath has been appeased by the propitiatory sacrifice. So if God has done this for 100% of humanity in Christ, there remains no basis for condemnation. God's wrath has been absorbed by the propitiatory sacrifice that is Christ Jesus. If 1 John 2:2 is referring to 100% of humanity, universalism is true.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Do you agree that every person is born into this world either elect or non-elect?

I certainly don't think we're all correct. Best case scenario one of us is right. Worst cast we're both wrong.
From God's perspective, his predestination is from the foundation of the world. From the perspective of human beings, they become elect at the point at which they believe in Christ alone for salvation:
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. (Rom 10:17 NIV).
You say that "best case scenario one of us is right". When you write in this thread, you sound like there is only one person who could possibly be right (correct) and that is griff. OzSpen's Reformed Arminian perspective on salvation is condemned by you. So, in the doctrine of salvation, Oz is the false teacher as a Reformed Arminian and griff is the correct teacher as a Calvinist. That's how you come across to me on this Forum and in this thread. So how can you possibly say that one of the options is that "one of us is right"?

Are you prepared to admit that there is a definite possibility that I, a Reformed Arminian, in my understanding of salvation could be correct and that griff's Calvinistic interpretation could be wrong? Is that one option?

If "we're both wrong", where could you be wrong in your understanding of Calvinistic soteriology?

Oz
 
Upvote 0
G

guuila

Guest
From God's perspective, his predestination is from the foundation of the world. From the perspective of human beings, they become elect at the point at which they believe in Christ alone for salvation:

Bingo. There's your problem. You think election happens in time. I think it happened before the world was ever created. The verse you quoted says nothing about election. It speaks more of justification. Another category error on your part.

You say that "best case scenario one of us is right". When you write in this thread, you sound like there is only one person who could possibly be right (correct) and that is griff.

I am right. If I thought I was wrong, I'd change my theology.

OzSpen's Reformed Arminian perspective on salvation is condemned by you.

Uh huh. And?

So, in the doctrine of salvation, Oz is the false teacher as a Reformed Arminian and griff is the correct teacher as a Calvinist. That's how you come across to me on this Forum and in this thread. So how can you possibly say that one of the options is that "one of us is right"?

Because I believe I'm the one who is right.

Are you prepared to admit that there is a definite possibility that I, a Reformed Arminian, in my understanding of salvation could be correct and that griff's Calvinistic interpretation could be wrong? Is that one option?

I believe I could be wrong, yes. But I don't think I am.

If "we're both wrong", where could you be wrong in your understanding of Calvinistic soteriology?

Oz

Any number of places I suppose.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,187
25,222
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,699.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
So that applies to all of the approx. 2,000 languages in the world that have not been translated and do not have a Bible in that language? They are the figures from Wycliffe/SIL. So are these tribes getting exactly what they deserve? And this amounts to approx. 209 million people.

Yes. Those who have never heard are still guilty of sin. Maybe that's different in your Arminianism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,187
25,222
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,699.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
In your system, unconditional election is the means by which God elects the saved. So how can people desire to be saved, in your system, without being in God's unconditional elect?

God doesn't elect the saved.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
griff,
Since you obviously hate doing exegesis, I guess I'll do your work for you.
I love exegesis, have a bachelor's degree with a minor in NT Greek and am currently writing a PhD dissertation (dissertation only in the British system). If you read my posts carefully you will know that I stated that I have a personal situation in which I am not able to reply to all antagonists to my position (and that includes doing exegesis).

Also, I posted my exegesis on Hebrews 6:4-8, which is something that I've published on my homepage previously under "Once saved, always saved or once saved, lost again".

Please quit this one upmanship in which you are trying to make out that you have the exegetical higher ground. I'm not buying into your tactics. If that's where you want to go, I'll ignore reply posts from you.
 
Upvote 0
G

guuila

Guest
griff,

I love exegesis, have a bachelor's degree with a minor in NT Greek and am currently writing a PhD dissertation (dissertation only in the British system). If you read my posts carefully you will know that I stated that I have a personal situation in which I am not able to reply to all antagonists to my position (and that includes doing exegesis).

Also, I posted my exegesis on Hebrews 6:4-8, which is something that I've published on my homepage previously under "Once saved, always saved or once saved, lost again".

Please quit this one upmanship in which you are trying to make out that you have the exegetical higher ground. I'm not buying into your tactics. If that's where you want to go, I'll ignore reply posts from you.

I have a bachelor's degree in Computer Science. So if you want, we could go toe to toe on the topic of logical fallacies and/or logic in general, which is something you think you've mastered. Not really sure why we need to boast in our credentials, but I thought I'd go ahead and throw mine out there since we're on the topic.

If you're a NT scholar, it seems you'd have some original exegesis on the verses you like to use to defeat Calvinism. What I posted to you on 2 Pet. 3:9 took me about 30 minutes to type. I'm not sure what your personal situation is, but if you can't provide exegesis to back up your claims, you might be better off not contributing to the discussion until you can.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.