Lazarus ....!

Nope, 2 Thess. 2:13 says election is conditional on GOD "choosing" us.
Belief in the truth is the MEANS in which we are saved, not the "cause".

And no, one cannot be saved without believing.
But believing is not the "cause" of salvation.
Nobody around here has the superhuman power to cause his own salvation. It's God who is the ultimate cause. Nevertheless, 2Th 2:13 does say that God chose you to salvation through belief of the truth. Do you agree with that?
 
His Verse would be a great Verse, and a foolproof Verse; if it were the only Verse in the Bible...

This is what is really going on here at CARM. Everyone seems to ignore All Scripture. A true Sola Scripturist would be a notorious middle man...
I would be interested to see how you would harmonize 2 Th 2:13 with Rom 9. I can do the same if you think that's something worth doing in light of your concerns.
 
Nobody around here has the superhuman power to cause his own salvation. It's God who is the ultimate cause. Nevertheless, 2Th 2:13 does say that God chose you to salvation through belief of the truth. Do you agree with that?

Of course I agree with that.
I've told you that at least 5-6 times already.

The problem is that you don't UNDERSTAND what that verse is teaching.
You don't understand the difference between "to" and "through".
 
I would be interested to see how you would harmonize 2 Th 2:13 with Rom 9. I can do the same if you think that's something worth doing in light of your concerns.
I would harmonize it Systematically through Theology...

I think that we need to ask what the Verse means by God Choosing us; is he Choosing to Elect us or is he Choosing to Justify us?
 
I would harmonize it Systematically through Theology...
It's good you mentioned that before we started anything. I would be interested only if harmonization was attempted directly through Bible verses.
I think that we need to ask what the Verse means by God Choosing us; is he Choosing to Elect us or is he Choosing to Justify us?
Choosing us to salvation through our belief of the truth.
 
Jn 11:43-44 ... And when He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” Out came the man who had died, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus *said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

Did Jesus force Lazarus to come to life? 🤔
Often I have asked folks--"did Lazarus have a choice"? I think he is a type of those drawn and made alive. Yup--I do.
 
It's good you mentioned that before we started anything. I would be interested only if harmonization was attempted directly through Bible verses.

Choosing us to salvation through our belief of the truth.
Would you prefer I leave the word Theology out, and instead say I would let the Verses wrestle one another? It's easy to be too picky about Phraseology and duck the issue; you know the legitimate thing I want to do. Both Verses are Good for Doctrine; what is it?

But we can pick it up when you're ready...
 
Last edited:
Would you prefer I leave the word Theology out, and instead say I would let the Verses wrestle one another? It's easy to be too picky about Phraseology and duck the issue; you know the legitimate thing I want to do. Both Verses are Good for Doctrine; what is it?

But we can pick it up when you're ready...
I'm ok if we attach to the Bible verses our understanding of them with the clarity that any layman from any denomination can understand. What I'm against is bringing in concepts that are loaded with denominational-biased presuppositions, which we must all guard against including myself. Is that ok?
 
Would you prefer I leave the word Theology out, and instead say I would let the Verses wrestle one another? It's easy to be too picky about Phraseology and duck the issue; you know the legitimate thing I want to do. Both Verses are Good for Doctrine; what is it?

But we can pick it up when you're ready...
How do you want to approach this? I think the most equitable way is to take turns providing Bible verses that we think support our view. If so, you can provide the next verse since I already provided 2 Th 2:13. Along with one's provided verse he can attach how he understands that verse harmonizes with all other verses provided by both sides. We can put a time constraint of 2 days for each time someone has to provide a supporting verse. That way the other person is not left wondering if the debate is still on. This is a proposed approach, and you are more than welcome to suggest alternatives.

We also need to agree on a debate topic. I suggest we debate if God unconditionally elects some to salvation and all others to destruction. You can suggest another debate title.
 
How do you want to approach this? I think the most equitable way is to take turns providing Bible verses that we think support our view. If so, you can provide the next verse since I already provided 2 Th 2:13. Along with one's provided verse he can attach how he understands that verse harmonizes with all other verses provided by both sides. We can put a time constraint of 2 days for each time someone has to provide a supporting verse. That way the other person is not left wondering if the debate is still on. This is a proposed approach, and you are more than welcome to suggest alternatives.

We also need to agree on a debate topic. I suggest we debate if God unconditionally elects some to salvation and all others to destruction. You can suggest another debate title.
It's too late now. Later?
 
Of course. Whatever is best for you. Take your time and think about the approach.
The approach I take is that each Verse is as potent as the other Verse. At CARM, we tend to Pretext and say 'My Verse is better than your Verse'. I know; we would never say this, but it is what's happening. My approach is to believe both Verses, so I think Sola Scripturists should be notorious Middle-Men as a result. The Passage in Romans 9 about Election not being of the Will, is to be held as tightly as your Verse. Instead of saying, "There's no place like Home!" over and over again; you should be saying "There's no Will in Election" over and over again too. To not tout this as much, is Special Pleading when you ignore it...

The same goes for me; if I ignore that we're Chosen through Belief in the Truth, I'm making a Case based on Special Pleading. Calvinists believe the same as you; just more. What needs to be integrated is 'the more'. Things like ' not of the Will'...

I suggest this approach to you...
 
The approach I take is that each Verse is as potent as the other Verse. At CARM, we tend to Pretext and say 'My Verse is better than your Verse'. I know; we would never say this, but it is what's happening. My approach is to believe both Verses, so I think Sola Scripturists should be notorious Middle-Men as a result. The Passage in Romans 9 about Election not being of the Will, is to be held as tightly as your Verse. Instead of saying, "There's no place like Home!" over and over again; you should be saying "There's no Will in Election" over and over again too. To not tout this as much, is Special Pleading when you ignore it...

The same goes for me; if I ignore that we're Chosen through Belief in the Truth, I'm making a Case based on Special Pleading. Calvinists believe the same as you; just more. What needs to be integrated is 'the more'. Things like ' not of the Will'...

I suggest this approach to you...
The only way that I can personally hold both 2 Th 2:13 and Rom 9:16 tightly together, as you say, is if I harmonize them without sacrificing any of their true Biblical meanings. Would you like me to show how I believe they are Biblically harmonious? If you think that's something you would like to do then please do go ahead.
 
The only way that I can personally hold both 2 Th 2:13 and Rom 9:16 tightly together, as you say, is if I harmonize them without sacrificing any of their true Biblical meanings. Would you like me to show how I believe they are Biblically harmonious? If you think that's something you would like to do then please do go ahead.
I would appreciate your thoughts on it , thanks !
 
The only way that I can personally hold both 2 Th 2:13 and Rom 9:16 tightly together, as you say, is if I harmonize them without sacrificing any of their true Biblical meanings. Would you like me to show how I believe they are Biblically harmonious? If you think that's something you would like to do then please do go ahead.
Sure. I would say that Romans 9 would clariify the meaning of Second Thessalonians because we are not Chosen for Election according to our Will, but 2 Thess means we are Chosen by God because we are Justified due to our Faith...

I would expect us to talk about whether one Verse can modify another Verse or not; they can't. Verses are carved in stone with God's finger, so we can only modify our understanding which is derived from these two Verses. Romans 9 says we are not Chosen because of our Will, and 2 Thess says we are Chosen due to our Will; the only way to resolve this Contradiction is to ask what are we being Chosen to; Election or Justification? Election and Justification are not the same Category, so God chooses us to be Justified through our Belief in the Truth, but he does not Elect us due to our Will to Believe the Truth...

The demons believe the Truth; and tremble...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top