Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

[studier]

Or the Egyptians under his rule for that matter. God left that pagan, idolatrous nation to stew in its own juices. Egypt was clearly a type of world, i.e. or more specifically a type of dominion of darkness under the rule of the evil one (of whom Pharaoh himself was a type). God had zero intentions of rescuing the citizens of that dark kingdom any more than he was interested in saving Adam after he sinned. God "came down" to rescue only his helpless elect. One has to be totally blind -- intentionally blind to not see these truths and to very easily make the parallels to the antitypes in the NT.

Yet out of Egypt came a mixed multitude.

 

[Rufus]

When are you going to prove the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant is separate and distinct from the New Covenant He implemented?


Why did the God who makes unilateral covenants with men deem it important to clearly state to men that His unilateral covenant with Abraham would advance because [faithful] Abraham obeyed Him?

Why do we read through 3 chapters of Gen12-15 that speak of Abraham's mostly faithful obedience to YHWH over a period of about 10 years before we see Him cut the covenant?

Why does the God who makes unilateral covenants with men provide the blessings of that covenant to men who believe in / obey Him?

 

[Rufus]

Yet out of Egypt came a mixed multitude.

Were you trying to make a profound point here? Is your knowledge of scripture that impoverished?

But...to your question: Isn't Abraham's seed a mixed multitude? Wouldn't the "mixed multitude" be the second flock of Christ's sheep who are not of the first flock but will be joined to it?

 

[PaulThomson]

Will you please elaborate?

Ex. 30:15 The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less that half a shekel, when they give an offering to the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.
16 And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial to the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

Ex. 32;30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said to the people, "You have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up to the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.'

And there are all the texts about animal sacrifices making atonement.

It seems to me that many people think that the New Covenant presents a one to one correspondence with elements of the Mosaic Covenant, but spiritualised. I think this is a big mistake. Elements of the New Covenant are alluded to by elements of the Mosaic Covenant, but is a radically different approach to producing reconciliation with God for those who consider themselves estranged from God for offending God.

Before the Mosaic Law came, man was reconciled to God by grace through faith. God was not reckoning men's sins against them and requiring payment for sins before He would forgive and receive people. All that was required was that men stopped ignoring God and turned to seeking and trusting God. Because it was presupposed in all Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures that their gods were like human kings, the Hebrews gave offerings to God to get into His good books. However, it was not the sacrifices and offerings that pleased God and brought reconciliation (atoned), but the return to faith in, and to an acknowledgement of, God.

One negative result of God's gracious overlooking of sins during this period was that many people grew to consider that God did not care about sin, and descended into darker wickedness, or comparing themselves to others and becoming self-righteous, considering themselves as morally better. So, God introduced the Mosaic Law, to show how pervasive sin was, how high His standard for holiness is, and what it would cost if God were like the ANE gods and the sinner was required to pay for his own atonement. Under the Mosaic Law, atonement was made by making payment AFTER sins. However, the pre-Mosaic path to reconciliation remained open and available even for Israelites, which is why David did not offer a sacrifice for his adultery and murder, but took the "return to faith in God" path.

Under the new covenant, atonement is paid in advance by one sacrifice for all people forever BEFORE we sin. We are given strong assurance of a favourable reception by God through two immutable things: an unchanging sacrifice and an unchanging priesthood.
So, we are back to the pre-Mosaic method of atonement, but with the added assurance of these two immutable things, that if we come in faith God will receive us. Under the Mosaic law sacrifices of money, or beasts were the precursors to atonement. Under the New Covenant in Jesus' blood, atonement in His blood is not paid AFTER sins, else He would need to be offered continually, but atonement in His blood is the precursor, offered before we sin, so that we can simply come with faith without having to atone ourselves for our own sins in some way.

 

[Rufus]

When are you going to prove the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant is separate and distinct from the New Covenant He implemented?

Well that's simple. First, the unconditional promises of the NC are in the OT. And the conditions of the NT Gospel are in the NT. And while these two theological instruments are different, they are not incompatible with one another;in fact both were designed by an infinitely wise God to work like a hand-in-glove.

Secondly, when are you going to answer my two questions about the Abrahamic and New Covenants in that I asked in 10,029? Or have you seen the light and already agree that both covenants are unilateral in nature? Have you actually come down on a side of this "great debate"?

Why did the God who makes unilateral covenants with men deem it important to clearly state to men that His unilateral covenant with Abraham would advance because [faithful] Abraham obeyed Him?

Why do we read through 3 chapters of Gen12-15 that speak of Abraham's mostly faithful obedience to YHWH over a period of about 10 years before we see Him cut the covenant?

Why does the God who makes unilateral covenants with men provide the blessings of that covenant to men who believe in / obey Him?

Wanna play "Let's Make a Deal"? I'll answer these last three questions if you answer any 3 of the 6 I have been asking you re 1Tim 4:10. You see...I could have played your foolish, juvenile game and pretended I didn't read your entire post but the Lord told me that his strength is perfected even in my weaknesses, including my imperfect understanding of his Word. So...do we have a deal?

 

[PaulThomson]

I don't care because of my hermeneutics methodology. Why can't you answer my three questions? For someone with such great "understanding" you sure know how to beat around the bush.

Re the implication to your interpretation: I figure that since God actually saves believers from the penalty and power of sin as their Savior, what else could I infer about God who is also the Savior of all unbelievers as well? Are you now suggesting that God is the Savior of believers in one sense and the Savior of unbelievers in a totally different sense?

The John is the lifeguard for all beach-goers, especially of those who he saves from the consequences of swimming outside the flags and/or being caught in the power of a rip. Since John actually saves those who swim outside the flags and are caught in the rip, what could I infer about John who is also the lifeguard of all beach-goers as well? Am I now suggesting that John is the lifeguard of those actually rescued in one sense and the life-guard of those not calling on him for help in a totally different sense?

No. He is a lifeguard for all in the same sense. But he may be especially valued as a lifeguard by those who end up calling on him for rescue.

To fill out the lifeguard analogy: under the Mosaic Law swimmers were required to pay personally for the services of the lifeguard, and he would only save those who pay the him when he reached the struggling swimmer. Under grace God has already paid for the services of the lifeguard, and he will rescue anyone who calls on Him without any personal payment required.

 

[PaulThomson]

Ex. 30:15 The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less that half a shekel, when they give an offering to the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.
16 And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial to the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

Ex. 32;30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said to the people, "You have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up to the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.'

And there are all the texts about animal sacrifices making atonement.

It seems to me that many people think that the New Covenant presents a one to one correspondence with elements of the Mosaic Covenant, but spiritualised. I think this is a big mistake. Elements of the New Covenant are alluded to by elements of the Mosaic Covenant, but is a radically different approach to producing reconciliation with God for those who consider themselves estranged from God for offending God.

Before the Mosaic Law came, man was reconciled to God by grace through faith. God was not reckoning men's sins against them and requiring payment for sins before He would forgive and receive people. All that was required was that men stopped ignoring God and turned to seeking and trusting God. Because it was presupposed in all Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures that their gods were like human kings, the Hebrews gave offerings to God to get into His good books. However, it was not the sacrifices and offerings that pleased God and brought reconciliation (atoned), but the return to faith in, and to an acknowledgement of, God.

One negative result of God's gracious overlooking of sins during this period was that many people grew to consider that God did not care about sin, and descended into darker wickedness, or comparing themselves to others and becoming self-righteous, considering themselves as morally better. So, God introduced the Mosaic Law, to show how pervasive sin was, how high His standard for holiness is, and what it would cost if God were like the ANE gods and the sinner was required to pay for his own atonement. Under the Mosaic Law, atonement was made by making payment AFTER sins. However, the pre-Mosaic path to reconciliation remained open and available even for Israelites, which is why David did not offer a sacrifice for his adultery and murder, but took the "return to faith in God" path.

Under the new covenant, atonement is paid in advance by one sacrifice for all people forever BEFORE we sin. We are given strong assurance of a favourable reception by God through two immutable things: an unchanging sacrifice and an unchanging priesthood.
So, we are back to the pre-Mosaic method of atonement, but with the added assurance of these two immutable things, that if we come in faith God will receive us. Under the Mosaic law sacrifices of money, or beasts were the precursors to atonement. Under the New Covenant in Jesus' blood, atonement in His blood is not paid AFTER sins, else He would need to be offered continually, but atonement in His blood is the precursor, offered before we sin, so that we can simply come with faith without having to atone ourselves for our own sins in some way.

The point of the Exodus 30 and 32 citations was to point out that before the Law, effective atonement did not always require blood. Moses was able to acquire atonement for the people through intercession alone. And even after the law, souls were atoned for at the census with money without blood. God does not require blood per se, but a return to faith, often expressed culturally by the burnt offering of a slain animal.

 

[PaulThomson]

And if Jesus atoned for the sins of each and every person on the planet, then where in scripture is the covenant that God made with the entire world wherein he promised to atone for the sins for all? Yet, we find no such covenant but only a unilateral covenant that God made his chosen, covenant people.

You claim that there was a unilateral covenant made with one people. But which races were excluded from becoming Israelites? Was there anyone among the races of the entire world who could not enter the covenant people if they wished? In fact, the Bible records foreigners from other races who were received into the people of Israel. Bityah the princess who adopted Moses, Jethro Moses' father-in-law, Rahab. Ruth, Obadiah.

Your idea that God selecting one nation meant the exclusion of the rest of the world is therefore fallacious. No one was excluded from joining the House of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Membership was open to the whole world.

 

[studier]

But...to your question: Isn't Abraham's seed a mixed multitude? Wouldn't the "mixed multitude" be the second flock of Christ's sheep who are not of the first flock but will be joined to it?

Where did you see a question?

God had zero intentions of rescuing the citizens of that dark kingdom any more than he was interested in saving Adam after he sinned. God "came down" to rescue only his helpless elect

Apparently among the mixed multitude God may well have rescued some of the citizens of that dark kingdom and maybe you see that now.

Your statements about Adam are once again rejected. As is your concept of unconditional election and people not making a choice to follow God.

 

[studier]

Under the new covenant, atonement is paid in advance by one sacrifice for all people forever BEFORE we sin. We are given strong assurance of a favourable reception by God through two immutable things: an unchanging sacrifice and an unchanging priesthood.
So, we are back to the pre-Mosaic method of atonement, but with the added assurance of these two immutable things, that if we come in faith God will receive us

Thus, unlimited atonement and conditional election can also be spoken of in our Text as limited atonement by grace through faith?

And, as Paul in 1Tim4 says, God who is the Savior of the world, especially those who believe?

Please note the question marks. I don't want to be speaking for you.

 

[studier]

many people grew to consider that God did not care about sin, and descended into darker wickedness, or comparing themselves to others and becoming self-righteous, considering themselves as morally better

Sounds like some of Christianity today just as Paul had to deal with. I've spoken to some who seemed to have taken the ability to acknowledge sins to God per 1John as a license to sin and simply confess as if they're dealing with a Father who is unable to comprehend their motives and games.

 

[Rufus]

The John is the lifeguard for all beach-goers, especially of those who he saves from the consequences of swimming outside the flags and/or being caught in the power of a rip. Since John actually saves those who swim outside the flags and are caught in the rip, what could I infer about John who is also the lifeguard of all beach-goers as well? Am I now suggesting that John is the lifeguard of those actually rescued in one sense and the life-guard of those not calling on him for help in a totally different sense?

No. He is a lifeguard for all in the same sense. But he may be especially valued as a lifeguard by those who end up calling on him for rescue.

To fill out the lifeguard analogy: under the Mosaic Law swimmers were required to pay personally for the services of the lifeguard, and he would only save those who pay the him when he reached the struggling swimmer. Under grace God has already paid for the services of the lifeguard, and he will rescue anyone who calls on Him without any personal payment required.

But "John the lifeguard" purposely did not save the Egyptians when he saved Abraham's seed from Pharaoh and the Red Sea. I'd say he was a wee bit derelict in his duty.

Moreover, how is John the lifeguard for "all beach-goers" when far more of them are perishing under his watch than are being saved? And they perish because the message of the Cross is foolishness to them (1Cor 1:18), and a lifeguard is a smell of death to such (2Cor 2:15), and the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing because the god of this age has blinded their minds (2Cor 4:3-4), and all manner of evil deceives those who are perishing because they refused to love the truth and be saved (2Thes 2:10). In fact the "Savior of all men" sends such people a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness instead (2Thes 2:11).

Your analogy is an epic fail because the underlying assumption to it is that "all beach-goers" would naturally want to be saved in the case of trouble and, therefore, hold John the lifeguard in very high esteem as their potential life-saver. But the spiritual reality is that the vast majority of unregenerate naturally do not see themselves in need of being saved; for they are very content in their wickedness which is why they love the darkness and refuse to come to the Light; they hate God and his Son and their people; they hate knowledge and wisdom, they love themselves, love the world, love money, love pleasure, they do not choose the Fear of the Lord etc. Therefore, they naturally have no use for the "Savior of all men".

 

[Rufus]

You claim that there was a unilateral covenant made with one people. But which races were excluded from becoming Israelites? Was there anyone among the races of the entire world who could not enter the covenant people if they wished? In fact, the Bible records foreigners from other races who were received into the people of Israel. Bityah the princess who adopted Moses, Jethro Moses' father-in-law, Rahab. Ruth, Obadiah.

Your idea that God selecting one nation meant the exclusion of the rest of the world is therefore fallacious. No one was excluded from joining the House of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Membership was open to the whole world.

Not according to Jer 31:31. The NC is clearly made with God's chosen, covenant people. Who was at the Last Supper when Christ instituted the NC? And for whom did Christ come into this world to save them from their sins if not God's chosen, covenant people (Mat 1:21; Act 5:31; 13:23; Tit 2:14; 1Jn 3:5))?

And were not the Egyptians excluded from "membership" into God's exclusive covenant when God "came down" to save his chosen, covenant people?

Also, all the Gentiles that you point to as OT examples, assumes they weren't God's elect from all eternity.

 

[PaulThomson]

But "John the lifeguard" purposely did not save the Egyptians when he saved Abraham's seed from Pharaoh and the Red Sea. I'd say he was a wee bit derelict in his duty.

Moreover, how is John the lifeguard for "all beach-goers" when far more of them are perishing under his watch than are being saved? And they perish because the message of the Cross is foolishness to them (1Cor 1:18), and a lifeguard is a smell of death to such (2Cor 2:15), and the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing because the god of this age has blinded their minds (2Cor 4:3-4), and all manner of evil deceives those who are perishing because they refused to love the truth and be saved (2Thes 2:10). In fact the "Savior of all men" sends such people a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness instead (2Thes 2:11).

Your analogy is an epic fail because the underlying assumption to it is that "all beach-goers" would naturally want to be saved in the case of trouble and, therefore, hold John the lifeguard in very high esteem as their potential life-saver. But the spiritual reality is that the vast majority of unregenerate naturally do not see themselves in need of being saved; for they are very content in their wickedness which is why they love the darkness and refuse to come to the Light; they hate God and his Son and their people; they hate knowledge and wisdom, they love themselves, love the world, love money, love pleasure, they do not choose the Fear of the Lord etc. Therefore, they naturally have no use for the "Savior of all men".

God the lifeguard saved Pharaoh many times. When Pharaoh asked for God to relent from the plagues, God had mercy and relented, withdrawing the plagues.

For people who despise the lifeguard, think they are strong swimmers, and swim outside the flags, John is still commissioned as the lifeguard for them too.

My analogy does not assume that all beach-goers would naturally want to be saved in the case of trouble. Where did I say that?

 

[Rufus]

God the lifeguard saved Pharaoh many times. When Pharaoh asked for God to relent from the plagues, God had mercy and relented, withdrawing the plagues.

For people who despise the lifeguard, think they are strong swimmers, and swim outside the flags, John is still commissioned as the lifeguard for them too.

My analogy does not assume that all beach-goers would naturally want to be saved in the case of trouble. Where did I say that?

Oh...so people who are in deep trouble in the water don't naturally want to be saved? They don't cry out for someone to save them? They just figure`it'll be more exciting to look Death in they eye, flip it the bird and say..."I dare you"?

Secondly, the fact remains God never sent Moses the lifeguard to save the Egyptians.

Thirdly, how did it all work out for Pharaoh and his army in the end?

And I said yesterday, there are far, far more sinful "swimmers" perishing every day under the watch of the "Savior of all men" than he's actually saving.

 

[PaulThomson]

Oh...so people who are in deep trouble in the water don't naturally want to be saved? They don't cry out for someone to save them? They just figure`it'll be more exciting to look Death in they eye, flip it the bird and say..."I dare you"?

Secondly, the fact remains God never sent Moses the lifeguard to save the Egyptians.

Thirdly, how did it all work out for Pharaoh and his army in the end?

And I said yesterday, there are far, far more sinful "swimmers" perishing every day under the watch of the "Savior of all men" than he's actually saving.

Firstly, you've never heard of people committing suicide by drowning themselves, I guess.

Secondly, Pharaoh asked for deliverance from at least some of the plagues, and God showed mercy and saved the Egyptians from them.

Ex. 8:8 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, Intreat the Lord, that he may take away the frogs from me, and from my people; and I will let the people go, that they may do sacrifice unto the Lord.

9 And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me: when shall I intreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people, to destroy the frogs from thee and thy houses, that they may remain in the river only?

10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the Lord our God.

11 And the frogs shall depart from thee, and from thy houses, and from thy servants, and from thy people; they shall remain in the river only.

12 And Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh: and Moses cried unto the Lord because of the frogs which he had brought against Pharaoh.

13 And the Lord did according to the word of Moses; and the frogs died out of the houses, out of the villages, and out of the fields.

14 And they gathered them together upon heaps: and the land stank.

15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.


Ex.9:27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.

28 Intreat the Lord (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer.

29 And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the Lord; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the Lord's.

30 But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the Lord God.

31 And the flax and the barley was smitten: for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was bolled.

32 But the wheat and the rie were not smitten: for they were not grown up.

33 And Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh, and spread abroad his hands unto the Lord: and the thunders and hail ceased, and the rain was not poured upon the earth.

34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

35 And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as the Lord had spoken by Moses.

So, the Lifeguard saved Pharaoh and the Egyptians when they cried for help at least twice.

Thirdly, it did not work out well for Pharaoh and his armies in the end.

Fourthly, the Lifeguard is still there and willing to save whoever calls upon Him for rescue. That many more do not call upon Him does not mean He is not stationed there as their Lifeguard.

 

[studier]

Warning! Lengthy tome follows.

NKJ 1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach1, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. I’ve highlighted the word “is” for a reason.

In the Reformed debates over Unconditional Election vs. Conditional Election, one of the arguments about this verse for the Conditional position explains the verse in terms of God being the potential and provisional Savior vs. the actual Savior. IOW, Salvation is potential and provisional (based upon faith) for all, but actual only for those who believe.

Currently, I agree with this. I also see a way in the Greek language to substantiate this and IMO this draws a consistent and beautiful picture of our God. I’ll let you gather your own thoughts from Scripture, but this (and others) come quickly to mind. Jesus has healed a man on Sabbath:

NKJ John 5:15-17 The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."​

No matter what men think, though God rested at creation, God has never rested from sustaining and working in His creation. What I get from Scripture says this also applies to the Salvation of His creation. God who desires all men be saved sent His Son as a ransom for all men per 1Tim2:3-6. This verse is a prelude to 1Tim4:10. I’ve highlighted the word “desires” for a reason.

Biblical Greek is not like English. Unlike the English verbs, the Greek verbal system has substantial range and detail and is not focused on simple past, present and future time. In fact, time isn’t the main idea in the Greek verbs and mainly comes from other grammatical markers in context. Greek is more interested in what takes place vs. when something takes place.

We’ve had a staunch calvinist in this thread use an English concept of the verb translated “is” in 1Tim4:10 to try to make the case against Conditional Election by telling us God is not the “actual” Savior of all men, though the verse says God is the Savior of all men. IOW, the [erroneous] assertion is that “is” means “actual.” But English is not Greek and by mistaking that it is, the conclusion is actually the opposite of what the Text means and is saying.

Here’s my observation. I’m using Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace as my Reference. The verb translated “is” in 1Tim4:10 is Present Tense. Regarding the Greek Present Tense Verb (the underlined highlighting is mine):

Introduction: The Basic Meaning​

​

Aspect​

​

With reference to aspect, the present tense is internal (that is, it portrays the action from the inside of the event, without special regard for beginning or end), but it makes no comment as to fulfillment (or completion). The present tense’s portrayal of an event “focuses on its development or progress and sees the occurrence in regard to its internal make-up, without beginning or end in view.” It is sometimes called progressive: It “basically represents an activity as in process (or in progress).”​

Continuing in the Reference, there are several options a translator must choose from when classifying the Greek present tense verb to determine precisely what the author is telling us. I’ve reviewed all of these choices, and this is the one that makes the most sense to me:

C. Conative (Tendential, Voluntative) Present​

​

Definition​

​

This use of the present tense portrays the subject as desiring to do something (voluntative), attempting to do something (conative), or at the point of almost doing something (tendential).57 This usage is relatively rare.58​

​

We will break this down into two categories: in progress, but not complete (true conative); not begun, but about/desired to be attempted (voluntative, tendential).​

​

This general category needs to be distinguished from the futuristic present, which typically connotes certainty that an action will be carried out.​

​

1. In Progress, but not Complete (True Conative)​

​

a. Definition​

​

The present tense is used to indicate that an attempt is being made in the present time (indicative mood). Often it bears the connotation that the action will not be completed; it is thus an unsuccessful attempt in progress.59​

​

2. Not Begun, but About/Desired to be Attempted (Voluntative/ Tendential)​

​

a. Definition​

​

The present tense is used to indicate that an attempt is about to be made or one that is desired to be made in the present time (or, very near future time). The action may or may not be carried out.​

So, if we use this information to translate 1Tim4:10 and based upon 1Tim2:3-6:

• God desires all men be saved
• Thus, God sent His Son as a ransom for all men
• God “is” the Savior of all men simply tells us:
  • God desires to save all men
    • Just as Paul said in 1Tim2:3-6
  • And/Or God is attempting to save all men
    • Which IMO can be seen in many areas of the New Covenant Writings
  • Nothing as to whether or not God will save all men
    • This must come from elsewhere in Scripture such as the next clause, “especially of those who believe.”
• In this light:
  • “God “is” Savior of all men” is potential and provisional.
  • “Especially of those who believe” is actual.
• When we define (from a few online dictionaries) “conative” and “voluntative” we learn even more:
  • Conative: connected with a wish, intention, or effort to do something
  • Voluntative: Expresses a desire to do something. adjective. of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled · adjective. controlled by individual volition.

The way I understand our God and Savior, this aligns with what I know of His heart, His Grace, and His love for His creation.

It also tells me something I run into a times in my own efforts in working at something pursuant to His will that ultimately will not produce the desired outcome. His Salvation is potential and provisional for many who will reject Him, and actual only for those who will accept Him in Faith and Obey Him. Nevertheless, our Creator who astoundingly creates with a Word is at work for all men and sent our Lord to die for all men even knowing not all men will choose to believe in and love Him. To me this is mind-boggling and tells us how important it is to Him to have sons and daughters created in His likeness and having a will in His likeness.

The moral of the story; learn some Greek and consider the truth about our God, Creator and Savior of all men, especially those who believe. Unlimited Atonement & Conditional Election.

I still think the @PaulThomson lifeguard analogy has merit. I also know he considers the nuances of the original languages.

 

[Rufus]

Firstly, you've never heard of people committing suicide by drowning themselves, I guess.

Secondly, Pharaoh asked for deliverance from at least some of the plagues, and God showed mercy and saved the Egyptians from them.

Ex. 8:8 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, Intreat the Lord, that he may take away the frogs from me, and from my people; and I will let the people go, that they may do sacrifice unto the Lord.

9 And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me: when shall I intreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people, to destroy the frogs from thee and thy houses, that they may remain in the river only?

10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the Lord our God.

11 And the frogs shall depart from thee, and from thy houses, and from thy servants, and from thy people; they shall remain in the river only.

12 And Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh: and Moses cried unto the Lord because of the frogs which he had brought against Pharaoh.

13 And the Lord did according to the word of Moses; and the frogs died out of the houses, out of the villages, and out of the fields.

14 And they gathered them together upon heaps: and the land stank.

15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.


Ex.9:27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.

28 Intreat the Lord (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer.

29 And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the Lord; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the Lord's.

30 But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the Lord God.

31 And the flax and the barley was smitten: for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was bolled.

32 But the wheat and the rie were not smitten: for they were not grown up.

33 And Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh, and spread abroad his hands unto the Lord: and the thunders and hail ceased, and the rain was not poured upon the earth.

34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

35 And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as the Lord had spoken by Moses.

So, the Lifeguard saved Pharaoh and the Egyptians when they cried for help at least twice.

Thirdly, it did not work out well for Pharaoh and his armies in the end.

Fourthly, the Lifeguard is still there and willing to save whoever calls upon Him for rescue. That many more do not call upon Him does not mean He is not stationed there as their Lifeguard.

And all that that you posted is "salvation"? You have a pretty low view of salvation. And you still conveniently forget that God never intended to save Pharaoh in the first place.

Ex 4:21-23
21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.'"
NIV

And was it God's intention to call all the Egyptians out of Egypt so that they would go and worship him. It was never God's intention that Pharaoh set free His firstborn either.

Another reason your lame analogy that John is the "savior" of the entire beach fails miserably is because not everyone at John's beach will ever need to be saved. Whereas, everyone in the world does!

 

[Rufus]

Warning! Lengthy tome follows.

Introduction: The Basic Meaning​

​

Aspect​

​

With reference to aspect, the present tense is internal (that is, it portrays the action from the inside of the event, without special regard for beginning or end), but it makes no comment as to fulfillment (or completion). The present tense’s portrayal of an event “focuses on its development or progress and sees the occurrence in regard to its internal make-up, without beginning or end in view.” It is sometimes called progressive: It “basically represents an activity as in process (or in progress).”​

Continuing in the Reference, there are several options a translator must choose from when classifying the Greek present tense verb to determine precisely what the author is telling us. I’ve reviewed all of these choices, and this is the one that makes the most sense to me:

C. Conative (Tendential, Voluntative) Present​

​

Definition​

​

This use of the present tense portrays the subject as desiring to do something (voluntative), attempting to do something (conative), or at the point of almost doing something (tendential).57 This usage is relatively rare.58​

​

We will break this down into two categories: in progress, but not complete (true conative); not begun, but about/desired to be attempted (voluntative, tendential).​

​

This general category needs to be distinguished from the futuristic present, which typically connotes certainty that an action will be carried out.​

​

1. In Progress, but not Complete (True Conative)​

​

a. Definition​

​

The present tense is used to indicate that an attempt is being made in the present time (indicative mood). Often it bears the connotation that the action will not be completed; it is thus an unsuccessful attempt in progress.59​

​

2. Not Begun, but About/Desired to be Attempted (Voluntative/ Tendential)​

​

a. Definition​

​

The present tense is used to indicate that an attempt is about to be made or one that is desired to be made in the present time (or, very near future time). The action may or may not be carried out.​

So, if we use this information to translate 1Tim4:10 and based upon 1Tim2:3-6:

• God desires all men be saved
• Thus, God sent His Son as a ransom for all men
• God “is” the Savior of all men simply tells us:
  • God desires to save all men
    • Just as Paul said in 1Tim2:3-6
  • And/Or God is attempting to save all men
    • Which IMO can be seen in many areas of the New Covenant Writings
  • Nothing as to whether or not God will save all men
    • This must come from elsewhere in Scripture such as the next clause, “especially of those who believe.”
• In this light:
  • “God “is” Savior of all men” is potential and provisional.
  • “Especially of those who believe” is actual.
• When we define (from a few online dictionaries) “conative” and “voluntative” we learn even more:
  • Conative: connected with a wish, intention, or effort to do something
  • Voluntative: Expresses a desire to do something. adjective. of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled · adjective. controlled by individual volition.

The way I understand our God and Savior, this aligns with what I know of His heart, His Grace, and His love for His creation.

It also tells me something I run into a times in my own efforts in working at something pursuant to His will that ultimately will not produce the desired outcome. His Salvation is potential and provisional for many who will reject Him, and actual only for those who will accept Him in Faith and Obey Him. Nevertheless, our Creator who astoundingly creates with a Word is at work for all men and sent our Lord to die for all men even knowing not all men will choose to believe in and love Him. To me this is mind-boggling and tells us how important it is to Him to have sons and daughters created in His likeness and having a will in His likeness.

The moral of the story; learn some Greek and consider the truth about our God, Creator and Savior of all men, especially those who believe. Unlimited Atonement & Conditional Election.As far as what God desires and what he decrees, those are two different things. W

I still think the @PaulThomson lifeguard analogy has merit. I also know he considers the nuances of the original languages.

(cut to save space)

Wow! This is one lame argument! So, those who currently believe, God (in Christ) is their actual Savior. But those who don't believe, He's merely their wanna-be Savior. So, the "is" has two very different meanings! Talk out of both sides of your mouth much? He's desperately trying to save unbelievers! Begging for them to be saved? Pleading with them to go to Jesus because, evidently, his drawing them to his Son is not not very effective, even though Jesus himself taught that "whoever the Father gives to me will come to me (Jn 6:44, 65)? Do you think God gets down on his knees to beg men to "like" Him or his Son so that he can gain more glory for himself? So, that He can pat himself on the back and boast before Satan, perhaps and look more important before all his angels? What a horrendous, pathetic, carnal, fleshly, worldly view of God, especially in light of the unconditional New Covenant which definitely portrays God as a mighty, all-powerful Savior who actually saves his chosen, covenant people.

If Paul wanted to convey the idea about whom it is that God saves, all he would he would have had to say is that God will save all men who come to him in faith. Or that God will be the Savior of all men who come to him in faith. But both of these concepts would have also contradicted scripture. So, instead, Paul qualified (limited) the extent of God's role of Savior to those who actually believe. God is not the Savior of each and every Gentile, but just of those who believe.

In my 10,005, I explained who "all men" are in 1Tim 2:4-6. It's NOT the world in the distributive sense. It's the Gentiles in v.7. Likewise, "all men" in 1Tim 4:10 would be the same Gentiles to whom Paul was sent to preach the gospel. So, since Paul excluded the Jews in 2:7 from being "all men", then this latter phrase cannot logically be understood in the distributive sense. "All men" in chapters 2 and 4 are clearly just the Gentiles.

And where is your version of God found in the Exodus account? I only read of a very powerful God who actually rescued his firstborn from the clutches of Pharaoh. I don't think I read anywhere in the account where God ever doubted the outcome of his rescue mission! But now in this NC age, things are together different somehow? The whole salvation thingy is a big toss-up, isn't it? God rescues some and loses most! That's your god!? Your savior?

And you still think that fallen man, as helpless and powerless as he is, is in full control of his own destiny, don't you? In spite of all the scriptures that teach differently such as Ps 110:3; Jer 31-34; 32:40-41; Ezek 36:24-27, 29a, 31-32; Prov 16:1, 9; 19:21; 20:24; 21:1; Jer 10:23, etc.? Man lost all control over his destiny when Adam sinned and put all his progeny in bondage to the flesh, the devil and the world. Man's will is not free; rather it is in bondage and God is the only one able to rescue the sons of men from their horrendous predicament. You do know, don't you, that there are things in this life that once done, cannot be undone? I'll give you but one "small" example: Can any man change the past?

There are two morals to this little post is this: Learn the truth of the Full Counsel of God someday before it's too late. The second is about tomes, most especially the lengthy ones:

Eccl 6:11 (scripture's version of Occam's Razor against unnecessarily multiplying entities)
11 The more the words,
the less the meaning,
and how does that profit anyone?
NIV

 

[studier]

Wow! This is one lame argument!

As I looked at all this again, it seemed we're having the Bill Clinton argument - it depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.

I'm thankful that our God has men that have done the work to preserve and instruct how His chosen language of Scripture actually works. There's one thing I wrote that I'd tighten up just a bit, but it won't do you any good as you couldn't understand anything beyond your calvinistic and English orientation. You're not even up to speed on the debates within your chosen camp.

Now, it's been clear that you haven't got a discerning cell in your soul and thrive on ad hominem gutter interactions.

I'm not interested. I've read no further than your first sentence.