The Synergism Safe House

[Philothei]

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

I would not be worried about infant baptisms The first Christians batized infants. Paul baptized "households" then it included infants and children Do we need to be "capable" intellectually to accept Christ? What about the infants that Christ said do not hinder them and let them come for they inherit the kingdom of God... *not meaning to starrt a debate here just some though*

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

Baptism has to do with spiritual transformation not intellectual... so the reason why we reject infant baptism carries little weight IMHO.

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 agree that we have to "run the race" as St. Paul puts it. We do have to fight the good fight is another way. So a Christian is never "sitting on his laurel" saying what a good Christian I am but constantly realizing that if we want to be close to God we will have to keep that communication open and nice illustration about your marriage. Lots of times we foget that the path to salvation is indeed a narrow path (per the Bible) It is a long journey... The more we hold on to our Savior hand the more we are closer to Him the minute we let human cares and sinning overtaking us the less we are willing to follow along.

 

[OzSpen]

Phil,

I would not be worried about infant baptisms The first Christians batized infants. Paul baptized "households" then it included infants and children

If you check out the "households" in the NT, the "households" believed, which is impossible for an infant to do (e.g. Gal. 6:10; Eph. 2:19).

Baptism has to do with spiritual transformation not intellectual... so the reason why we reject infant baptism carries little weight IMHO.

I disagree profoundly. It is very clear from Jesus' command in Matt. 28:19-20 that baptism is for those who are being discipled. This is impossible for infants.

Baptism has to do with discipleship. Is this what you mean by spiritual transformation? I have never inferred that baptism is an intellectual decision. It is a discipleship decision, as Jesus understood and stated it.

Oz

 

[Philothei]

Phil,


If you check out the "households" in the NT, the "households" believed, which is impossible for an infant to do (e.g. Gal. 6:10; Eph. 2:19).

I disagree profoundly. It is very clear from Jesus' command in Matt. 28:19-20 that baptism is for those who are being discipled. This is impossible for infants.

Baptism has to do with discipleship. Is this what you mean by spiritual transformation? I have never inferred that baptism is an intellectual decision. It is a discipleship decision, as Jesus understood and stated it.

Oz

The adults believed for sure but households means ALL members I disagree...But I would not turn this into a debate. We can go back and forth on the verses. Discipleship has to do with adult baptisms... It does not exclude infant or then we should had a prohibiltion about it and we do not

 

[L.J.]

here is an odd question,
I heard on sermon on the radio where the pastor stated his opinion (which he made clear it was his opinion) that the unsaved wouldn't want to go to heaven. That he would prefer hell to heaven. What is ya'll's opinion.
L.J.

 

[Philothei]

Well it depends what we call the 'unsaved' ... The ones who are saying they are Christians but live contrary to the commandments of Christ.... could be "unsaved" for it says "no everyone who calls on my name will be saved" like the wealthy man and Lazarus... He expected to be saved without confessing God or worrying about God's judgment...Also there are "unsaved" who are by conviction against God's kingdom... they just despise God and they deny Him altogether.... In Both cases it is the end reuslt of 'disobedience" and denial of God so yeah no matter in word or deed or belief if we deny God then God will deny us... Because if there is true "turn " to God even at the time we leave our last breath...there is always forgiveness and we truly do not know if the death is the last place where the forgiveness of God ends....that is His mercy. We can speculate and say that maybe He is willing to just accept man in whatever stage he is. But bottomline he cannot 'change' someone's free will to "deny" God.

 

[L.J.]

I think what I am trying to get at is, would an unsaved person even want to go to heaven?
From what I have read about heaven, its being 24/7 in the presence of God. If someone doesn't like worshiping God now, here on earth, why would they want to worship God continually in heaven?

 

[OzSpen]

I think what I am trying to get at is, would an unsaved person even want to go to heaven?
From what I have read about heaven, its being 24/7 in the presence of God. If someone doesn't like worshiping God now, here on earth, why would they want to worship God continually in heaven?

That is well said, L.J. Can you imagine the late Christopher Hitchens, an outspoken atheist, wanting to be continually in the presence of God? Hitchens' death is a very sad experience for all of his friends, and especially for his loved ones who are Christians.

But I cannot imagine that Richard Dawkins of God is a Delusion fame, would ever want to live continually in the presence of God. The same applies to the atheists with whom I have had discussions.

However, one doesn't have to be an atheist to be uncomfortable with the thought of continually being in the Lord's presence in heaven.

May you have a blessed and Christ-centred Christmas season.

In Christ, Oz

 

[Super Kal]

are there any of you on here that have facebook?... it would be a nice pleasure to know you guys/girls a little bit better, and have some fellowship with you outside of CF

 

[Philothei]

That is well said, L.J. Can you imagine the late Christopher Hitchens, an outspoken atheist, wanting to be continually in the presence of God? Hitchens' death is a very sad experience for all of his friends, and especially for his loved ones who are Christians.

But I cannot imagine that Richard Dawkins of God is a Delusion fame, would ever want to live continually in the presence of God. The same applies to the atheists with whom I have had discussions.

However, one doesn't have to be an atheist to be uncomfortable with the thought of continually being in the Lord's presence in heaven.

May you have a blessed and Christ-centred Christmas season.

In Christ, Oz

I think that the label "atheist" is a bit overated IMHO. You do not have to call yourself that to actually not want to be in God's presence There are many "theists" that would be terrified to the thought...but then again the "unknown" is scary ...One needs to spend time with God in prayer IMHO to know Him...and want to be with Him. Once we know God we like to be in his presence ... Like the wealthy mann who had NO NAME as God did not know him...cause he hardly spend any time with Him... Yep you do not have to be an atheist to do that... And sometimes atheists who are obsessed with the thought of nihillism...they have sometimes more chances to find Him than someone who thinks that they are with God... Like for example the Pharisees... Sad but true

are there any of you on here that have facebook?... it would be a nice pleasure to know you guys/girls a little bit better, and have some fellowship with you outside of CF

I usually keep my FB account for close friends and relatives... But we can chat through pm here if anyone is interested!

 

[OzSpen]

I think that the label "atheist" is a bit overated IMHO. You do not have to call yourself that to actually not want to be in God's presence There are many "theists" that would be terrified to the thought...but then again the "unknown" is scary ...One needs to spend time with God in prayer IMHO to know Him...and want to be with Him. Once we know God we like to be in his presence ... Like the wealthy mann who had NO NAME as God did not know him...cause he hardly spend any time with Him... Yep you do not have to be an atheist to do that... And sometimes atheists who are obsessed with the thought of nihillism...they have sometimes more chances to find Him than someone who thinks that they are with God... Like for example the Pharisees... Sad but true

I see this in my dissertation on J D Crossan. This week I have taken these notes about this scholar's pluralistic view of God:

In Wright’s (2000b) review of Crossan (1998), Wright made assessments about Crossan’s view of God, noting the following: (a) ‘The stirring but puzzling Epilogue, entitled “The Character of Your god”, consists of a short exegesis of Psalm 82 (which Crossan describes as, for him, “the most important text in the entire Bible” [Crossan 1998a:575]’. Wright goes on to note that in this Epilogue, Crossan makes ‘an insistence that not all gods are the same, and that in particular we must distinguish between justice and revenge, lest we become “the killer children of a Killer God”’ [Crossan 1998a:586] (Wright 2000b:78-79). Crossan’s language is that ‘when Judaism imagines apocalyptic consummation, what will happen to the pagans; and when Christianity imagines apocalyptic consummation, what will happen to the Jews? If, confronted with the blinding glory of God, all convert freely not to Judaism or to Christianity but to justice and righteousness, then all is well in our religious imagination. But if we await a divine slaughter of those who are not Jews or those who are not Christians, then we are the killer children of a Killer God. It is a question, once again, of character. Is your God a God of justice or of revenge?... Yahweh is a God not only of justice but also of compassion…. The thirst for justice without an instinct for compassion produces killers. Sometimes they are simply believers in a Killer God. Sometimes they are assistant killers of a Killer God’ (Crossan 1998a:586).

I cannot imagine Crossan wanting to be in the presence of the God revealed in Scripture. He tries to filter out what he doesn't believe about the Yahweh/Theos God of Scripture.

Oz

 

[Super Kal]

I usually keep my FB account for close friends and relatives... But we can chat through pm here if anyone is interested!

alright... anyone else?

 

[Philothei]

I see this in my dissertation on J D Crossan. This week I have taken these notes about this scholar's pluralistic view of God:

I cannot imagine Crossan wanting to be in the presence of the God revealed in Scripture. He tries to filter out what he doesn't believe about the Yahweh/Theos God of Scripture.

Oz

I think you hit the nail on the head there! What is the tittle of your dissertation? And which uni? I am a Holy Cross graduate of the EO school in Boston. ...You can pm it to me Oz It is great to see other's theologian's work

 

[OzSpen]

I think that the label "atheist" is a bit overated IMHO. You do not have to call yourself that to actually not want to be in God's presence There are many "theists" that would be terrified to the thought...but then again the "unknown" is scary ...One needs to spend time with God in prayer IMHO to know Him...and want to be with Him. Once we know God we like to be in his presence ... Like the wealthy mann who had NO NAME as God did not know him...cause he hardly spend any time with Him... Yep you do not have to be an atheist to do that... And sometimes atheists who are obsessed with the thought of nihillism...they have sometimes more chances to find Him than someone who thinks that they are with God... Like for example the Pharisees... Sad but true

I agree with most of what you said here. Even Richard Dawkins is now admitting that he is an agnostic rather than an atheist.

According to Romans 1:18ff, God does not believe that anyone can be an atheist. Many are suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness, as God's assessment.

Since God is infinite and has the attribute of all-knowledge (omniscience; See Psalm 139:1-10; Heb. 4:13), he knows all people. In fact, even the diminishing number of hairs on my head are known by God (Matt. 10:30).

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Philothei]

I agree with most of what you said here. Even Richard Dawkins is now admitting that he is an agnostic rather than an atheist.

According to Romans 1:18ff, God does not believe that anyone can be an atheist. Many are suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness, as God's assessment.

Since God is infinite and has the attribute of all-knowledge (omniscience; See Psalm 139:1-10; Heb. 4:13), he knows all people. In fact, even the diminishing number of hairs on my head are known by God (Matt. 10:30).

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Hupomone10]

I thought I would peruse this thread to see what (and who) is here, and then of course right away ran into this post:

Are you really serious?

Of course, those of us who are anything less than full 5-point and have been here a while are used to this arrogant, condescending attitude. Interesting caption below the person's avatar also: "Defender of the faith from heretical teachers."

Could someone explain to me the love affair some camps have (apparently especially in the reformed camp) with the word 'heretic'? Before I started posted on forums here, in 30 years of walking with the Lord I don't ever remember someone calling another evangelical believer a heretic. It conjures up bad pictures of what they did to our brothers and sisters in the middle ages. And yet it seems to be a common word for many in the reformed camp. Can someone explain this to me?

Thanks.

And now I shall peruse...

 

[Hupomone10]

I'm sure I'm a to be labeled a synergist. I believe regeneration is all of God, following faith of course. I see the logical order as faith then regeneration. This is why I believe I would be labeled as a synergist, because I believe man is free to believe. I don't see how this is different then a Reformed perspective where man also cooperates with God, just after regeneration. There's still cooperation either way. But no point in fighting the label prepared for me. Gotta call me something I guess.

It seems Cornelius is a great example of someone who was regenerated after hearing & believing the words spoken by Peter. Yet Cornelius feared God before Peter preached to him in order for him to be saved.

Acts 10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Act 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"

Acts 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

1 Peter 1:23 you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God

Cornelius conversion seems to be on Peter's mind even in Acts 15. Isn't having your heart cleansed/purified by faith saying the same thing as saying "regenerated by faith".

Following the flow of thought, we have several synonymous statements:
Baptized in the Spirit, receive the Spirit, Spirit fell on them, born of the Spirit, gift of the Spirit. All these terms seem to be used interchangeably. Faith preceded the Spirit being "birthed" in someone. And 1 Peter 1:23 agrees exactly with Peter's statement in Acts 11:14.

Any other synergists agree?

You are right, Arc. I thought the same thing last time I read the account of Cornelius. It is an excellent example.

Jesus said in John 7:6 "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune."

The example of Apollos is also curious. He "was mighty in the Scriptures", so obviously he believed them and believed in God; God who we are told that none can seek or believe in without a different faith being plopped down on them after regeneration occuring. Apollos was teaching repentance obviously, being acquainted with the baptism of John only, but how much more of the truth of Christ and his payment for our sins did he know? Not much, for Priscilla and Acquila "took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately." But, like Cornelius, he already believed what he knew. (Acts 18:24 - )

 

[Hupomone10]

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.

Oz, I know this is from some months back, but were you talking about this?

Case in point. This is from the synergist safe house.

"I'm sure I'm a to be labeled a synergist. I believe regeneration is all of God, following faith of course. I see the logical order as faith then regeneration. This is why I believe I would be labeled as a synergist, because I believe man is free to believe. I don't see how this is different then a Reformed perspective where man also cooperates with God, just after regeneration. There's still cooperation either way"

Also, do you know what happened to the 5-point brethren that are usually on the Baptist forum? They are mysteriously absent lately. Are they on an obligatory pilgrimage to Geneva or something?

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, I know this is from some months back, but were you talking about this?
Also, do you know what happened to the 5-point brethren that are usually on the Baptist forum? They are mysteriously absent lately. Are they on an obligatory pilgrimage to Geneva or something?

Yes, that was Hammster at #12 in "Monergism Safe House" at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7553638-2/

"Safe house" loses its meaning of being "safe" when somebody like Hammster took a quote from the "Synergism Safe House" and proceeded to denigrate synergism on the monergism safe house thread.

I don't follow the TULIP promoters and where they go. My position is that I use the biblical evidence to refute them - wherever and whenever they appear.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Knee V]

Could someone explain to me the love affair some camps have (apparently especially in the reformed camp) with the word 'heretic'?

Having come from a Reformed family and having been Reformed myself, I can assure you from experience that those who are adamant about their Calvinism believe that all positions that are not Calvinism are heresy. They believe that Calvinism is synonymous with The Gospel, and thus anything that is not Calvinism is not The Gospel, and thus a false gospel and a heresy.

I commend their dedication to what they believe to be truth, but, of course, I no longer agree with their conclusions.

 

[OzSpen]

Having come from a Reformed family and having been Reformed myself, I can assure you from experience that those who are adamant about their Calvinism believe that all positions that are not Calvinism are heresy. They believe that Calvinism is synonymous with The Gospel, and thus anything that is not Calvinism is not The Gospel, and thus a false gospel and a heresy.

I commend their dedication to what they believe to be truth, but, of course, I no longer agree with their conclusions.

So, in your view now, how would you define a heretic? Who are the heretics today?

Oz