Questions for Synergists

[OzSpen]

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.

Why don't you ask me why I ignored it? Instead, you make your allegation against me to another. That's ungodly.

The reason I ignored it is because of (1) a personal situation, (2) we are going round and round the mulberry tree and I'm not prepared to play that game any longer, (3) Today I've had to go to the funeral of a very dear friend whose death has caused grief in my life. But you don't seem to give a hoot about personal situations.

When will you quit this cyber gossip about me instead of addressing me directly with your issues?

I plan to leave this discussion because of the mean spirit of some of you towards me.

Bye, Oz

 

[Hammster]

Sarcasm doesn't work with me.

Obviously it does. But I know you must do what you can to deflect from addressing the point of my post. I think that's call a red herring.

 

[guuila]

Why don't you ask me why I ignored it? Instead, you make your allegation against me to another. That's ungodly.

Stating facts is ungodly? Obviously you did ignore it, as you admitted it here.

The reason I ignored it is because of (1) a personal situation, (2) we are going round and round the mulberry tree and I'm not prepared to play that game any longer, (3) Today I've had to go to the funeral of a very dear friend whose death has caused grief in my life. But you don't seem to give a hoot about personal situations.

I'm sorry to hear about your situation. But I'm not going to be swayed by your emotional arguments. You've had plenty of time to beat your red herring drum on here. There has been absolutely no indication thus far by your posts that you're having personal issues that prevent you from engaging in this debate. It sounds to me that you're wanting to use your personal life as an excuse to not do the work required in these debates. You want to make assertions, tell us we're wrong and ungodly fools, and then we're supposed to just take your word for it since you have personal issues. My advice to you is to get off these forums until you have your issues resolved.

When will you quit this cyber gossip about me instead of addressing me directly with your issues?

Nobody gossiped about you. I really think you need to take a break man.

I plan to leave this discussion because of the mean spirit of some of you towards me.

Bye, Oz

It's probably for the best.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Why don't you ask me why I ignored it? Instead, you make your allegation against me to another. That's ungodly.

The reason I ignored it is because of (1) a personal situation, (2) we are going round and round the mulberry tree and I'm not prepared to play that game any longer, (3) Today I've had to go to the funeral of a very dear friend whose death has caused grief in my life. But you don't seem to give a hoot about personal situations.

When will you quit this cyber gossip about me instead of addressing me directly with your issues?

I plan to leave this discussion because of the mean spirit of some of you towards me.

Bye, Oz

Are you leaving or planning to leave?

Commiserations on the loss of your friend, but as has been said, if you're not in a position to debate fully then you're tying our hands as well as your own.

 

[Hammster]

Why don't you ask me why I ignored it? Instead, you make your allegation against me to another. That's ungodly.

The reason I ignored it is because of (1) a personal situation, (2) we are going round and round the mulberry tree and I'm not prepared to play that game any longer, (3) Today I've had to go to the funeral of a very dear friend whose death has caused grief in my life. But you don't seem to give a hoot about personal situations.

When will you quit this cyber gossip about me instead of addressing me directly with your issues?

I plan to leave this discussion because of the mean spirit of some of you towards me.

Bye, Oz

I'm sorry about your friend. I've been there, as have most of us. But please don't pretend that we knew about it and are mocking you in your grief. It's probably best that you leave this discussion because it seems your grief has made you hyper-sensitive. And since you are unwilling to defend your views on anything, and all you want to do is complain about how mean we are to not consider your views as valid, then we aren't getting anywhere anyway.

 

[Metal Minister]

You are very unclear because of your inability to accept the Scripture that God is not wishing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). All people deserve hell, but God is not wishing that any should perish (get hell). That is where your system has a monstrous hole in it.

Then by your definition, why wasn't Christ's sacrifice the way of universal salvation?

 

[Metal Minister]

Why don't you ask me why I ignored it? Instead, you make your allegation against me to another. That's ungodly.

The reason I ignored it is because of (1) a personal situation, (2) we are going round and round the mulberry tree and I'm not prepared to play that game any longer, (3) Today I've had to go to the funeral of a very dear friend whose death has caused grief in my life. But you don't seem to give a hoot about personal situations.

When will you quit this cyber gossip about me instead of addressing me directly with your issues?

I plan to leave this discussion because of the mean spirit of some of you towards me.

Bye, Oz

I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your friend, you have my condolences.

 

[janxharris]

If someone doesn't get a "chance" at salvation, they're getting exactly what they deserve.

Deserve? You mean they get what God predetermined they would get. Deserved implies they did something off their own back doesn't it? That doesn't happen in your theology.

 

[Hammster]

Deserve? You mean they get what God predetermined they would get. Deserved implies they did something off their own back doesn't it? That doesn't happen in your theology.

Yes it does.

 

[guuila]

Deserve? You mean they get what God predetermined they would get. Deserved implies they did something off their own back doesn't it? That doesn't happen in your theology.

We are all guilty in Adam. Your Pelagianism is showing.

 

[janxharris]

Yes it does.

How?

 

[janxharris]

We are all guilty in Adam. Your Pelagianism is showing.

Go back as far as you like, but you have it that God predetermined it all.

The truth is, is that you cannot explain how we 'deserve' not getting a chance at salvation whilst God foreordained what we would do.

 

[guuila]

Go back as far as you like, but you have it that God predetermined it all.

The truth is, is that you cannot explain how we 'deserve' not getting a chance at salvation whilst God foreordained what we would do.

I may not be able to explain everything to your satisfaction, and I refuse to invent philosophies to make things more palatable. However, we know two things:

1. We are all guilty because of Adam's sin.
2. We deserve hell for said guilt.

This is what the Bible teaches.

 

[janxharris]

I may not be able to explain everything to your satisfaction, and I refuse to invent philosophies to make things more palatable.

Reformers are pretty silent on this issue - why would you expect anyone to take this theology seriously? It obviously proves that God did not foreordain all events.

However, we know two things:

1. We are all guilty because of Adam's sin.
2. We deserve hell for said guilt.

This is what the Bible teaches.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

Yes, we do deserve hell for our sins.

 

[guuila]

Reformers are pretty silent on this issue - why would you expect anyone to take this theology seriously? It obviously proves that God did not foreordain all events.

I honestly don't know what you're arguing about. You have said you're not a Pelagian; thus you believe we are guilty in Adam just like I do. Of course we must not forget that you have admitted recently you had a hard time following what I was talking about even though you had been arguing about it for weeks. That's probably what we're seeing here.

 

[janxharris]

I honestly don't know what you're arguing about. You have said you're not a Pelagian; thus you believe we are guilty in Adam just like I do. Of course we must not forget that you have admitted recently you had a hard time following what I was talking about even though you had been arguing about it for weeks. That's probably what we're seeing here.

I meant silent on reconciling God's eternal decree and man's responsibility. There is a contradiction.

 

[guuila]

I meant silent on reconciling God's eternal decree and man's responsibility. There is a contradiction.

Friends don't need reconciling.

 

[Skala]

Friends don't need reconciling.

Griff is correct.

There is nothing to reconcile. The Bible clearly teaches both. Our job is to submit to what the Bible teaches, not cast away God's sovereignty because we don't understand how it works.

Only God knows how it works.

 

[guuila]

Griff is correct.

There is nothing to reconcile. The Bible clearly teaches both. Our job is to submit to what the Bible teaches, not cast away God's sovereignty because we don't understand how it works.

Only God knows how it works.

I think this is yet another example of how man is absolutely and utterly depraved to the core of his being... desperately wanting to remove God from his throne. Unregenerate man would kill God if he could. "That doesn't make perfect sense in my brain - therefore I'm going to invent doctrines like prevenient grace to prop up the golden calf I like to call "free will"! Frrrreeeeedommm!!!!!!!!!! RAWR!!!!!!"

 

[janxharris]

Griff is correct.

There is nothing to reconcile. The Bible clearly teaches both. Our job is to submit to what the Bible teaches, not cast away God's sovereignty because we don't understand how it works.

Only God knows how it works.

The Bible does not teach both because both are irreconcilable.
The inability of Calvinists to explain their position on this issue proves that the theology is flawed.

Man is responsible, so God did not foreordain all events.