Of course, you haven't. We all know your modus operandi. You're so blind to your man-centered theology that you can't even detect the contradiction in your opening words. "IS" in 1Tim 4:10 means whatever you want it to mean. In terms of believers, it means God is actually their savior. But in regards to unbelievers it only means he's their potential savior. Most honest people would call this DOUBLESPEAK.
Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Here's a link to an excellent commentary on 1Tim 4:10 And not "excellent" only because it aligns with mine very nicely, but also because the commentator knows how to cut to the chase and get to the heart of the matter. And I'm not surprised that this commentary comes from a Sovereign Grace Fellowship church. Of all the denominations out there, I'm quite partial to this one in particular because their teaching and preaching is so spot-on the vast majority of the time. (I truly wish there was a Soverign Grace Church in the neck of my woods, but alas there are none.)
The commentator made the same connection I made with 1Tim 2:4-7, although he didn't specifically identify "all men" with Gentiles per se, as I have done. But he did spend some time evaluating Strong's 3956, "pas", and he understood it as referring to "all or many kinds". But now here's the kicker and why it's so important to place ourselves into the boots of the Original Audience and the Writer- --: Both of whom are Jews! To a Jewish mind there were only two kinds of people in the World: Jews, the chosen, covenant, privileged people of God who were holy, clean and circumcised, and their counterparts are all Gentiles who are alienated and strangers to God's covenants and promises and to the written code of His Law, thus making them unholy, uncircumcised and unclean. And Paul very clearly revealed his mindset in 2:7 when he told Timothy that he was appointed him as apostle for the specific purpose of preaching and teaching the gospel to the Gentiles, thereby identifying for us readers who specifically "all men" are vv. 4 and 6. Paul did not have each and every person in the world in mind (Jews and Gentiles) when he wrote "all men". He only had Gentiles in his mind. Therefore, this limits the extent of "all". "All" is being used in the sense of "many", as the commentator points out. Coversely, "many" is never used in a universal sense to mean "all".
The writer's understainding, as well as my own, of 1Tim 4:10 comport very well with the unconditional NC promises. In those promises God does not portray himself as a mere "potential" Savior any more than he did when he "came down" to save the ancient Hebrews from Pharaoh. Here's the link to a relatively short read.
https://salvationbygrace.org/current-qa/1-timothy-410/
The commentator made the same connection I made with 1Tim 2:4-7, although he didn't specifically identify "all men" with Gentiles per se, as I have done. But he did spend some time evaluating Strong's 3956, "pas", and he understood it as referring to "all or many kinds". But now here's the kicker and why it's so important to place ourselves into the boots of the Original Audience and the Writer- --: Both of whom are Jews! To a Jewish mind there were only two kinds of people in the World: Jews, the chosen, covenant, privileged people of God who were holy, clean and circumcised, and their counterparts are all Gentiles who are alienated and strangers to God's covenants and promises and to the written code of His Law, thus making them unholy, uncircumcised and unclean. And Paul very clearly revealed his mindset in 2:7 when he told Timothy that he was appointed him as apostle for the specific purpose of preaching and teaching the gospel to the Gentiles, thereby identifying for us readers who specifically "all men" are vv. 4 and 6. Paul did not have each and every person in the world in mind (Jews and Gentiles) when he wrote "all men". He only had Gentiles in his mind. Therefore, this limits the extent of "all". "All" is being used in the sense of "many", as the commentator points out. Coversely, "many" is never used in a universal sense to mean "all".
The writer's understainding, as well as my own, of 1Tim 4:10 comport very well with the unconditional NC promises. In those promises God does not portray himself as a mere "potential" Savior any more than he did when he "came down" to save the ancient Hebrews from Pharaoh. Here's the link to a relatively short read.
https://salvationbygrace.org/current-qa/1-timothy-410/
Jesus' death on the cross made it possible (opened the door) for all to get saved. However, not everyone will get saved (the road to damnation is wide, and the road to salvation is narrow and few will find it). We are all born defective and are all headed towards damnation. Our defect is our heart which has love of self as the motivation for every thought and action. If all are damned, then He would be merciless. If He saves everyone, then there would be lawlessness in heaven. To show His mercy and at the same time dispense justice, He saves a few. Those that are in the Book of Life are chosen by the Father (who knows past, present, and future). Those that have their sins erased by trusting in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins are still sinners and do not qualify to enter heaven. Their hearts' motivation will have to change from love of self to love for God first and everyone else the same as themselves. That is how true saints get perfected. This happens when they get baptized with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a portal through which the Father and Son can enter a being who is indwelt in order to communicate, speak through, motivate, and empower to do their will. Christ is going to present us to the Father perfect in love.
But with men salvation is impossible due to that "defective heart":
Mark 10:24-27
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"
27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible , but not with God; all things are possible with God."
NIV
Secondly, when God does the impossible, e.g. give a new heart to his chosen, covenant people that transforms those who were formerly darkness in the kingdom of darkness to children of Light, and in fact God qualifies his elect to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light:
Col 1:10-14
10 And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11 being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NIV
The elect in this New Covenant dispensation do not differ at all from God's elect whom he rescued out of Egypt. Just as the his OC chosen people were helpless, making it impossible for them to escape the clutches of Pharaoh, so it is with his NC elect, who also needed to be rescued from Satan's dominion of darkness so that they share in the in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.
Now...here's the thing about inheritances: The terms and conditions of a will are unilaterally determined solely by the testator, not the beneficiary. The terms are unilateral just as the terms of the New Covenant are! Jesus perfectly fulfilled the NC terms on behalf of all those whom the Father has given to him, so the only thing a beneficiary has to do is accept the benefits given to him by the testator. And in the case of the great gift of salvation, the Divine Testator even qualified his elect (in, through and by Christ) to share in the inheritance. No saint qualifies himself because it's impossible!
Sounds to me as though you were never taught these important truths of the Gospel, were you?
P.S. A question for those who naively think the term "all" is always used in the distributive sense. Given what Mk 10:27 teaches, do we have a contradiction in the bible since God cannot lie, cannot deny himself, cannot change? Or is "all" used in the limited sense?
Mark 10:24-27
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"
27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible , but not with God; all things are possible with God."
NIV
Secondly, when God does the impossible, e.g. give a new heart to his chosen, covenant people that transforms those who were formerly darkness in the kingdom of darkness to children of Light, and in fact God qualifies his elect to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light:
Col 1:10-14
10 And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11 being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NIV
The elect in this New Covenant dispensation do not differ at all from God's elect whom he rescued out of Egypt. Just as the his OC chosen people were helpless, making it impossible for them to escape the clutches of Pharaoh, so it is with his NC elect, who also needed to be rescued from Satan's dominion of darkness so that they share in the in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.
Now...here's the thing about inheritances: The terms and conditions of a will are unilaterally determined solely by the testator, not the beneficiary. The terms are unilateral just as the terms of the New Covenant are! Jesus perfectly fulfilled the NC terms on behalf of all those whom the Father has given to him, so the only thing a beneficiary has to do is accept the benefits given to him by the testator. And in the case of the great gift of salvation, the Divine Testator even qualified his elect (in, through and by Christ) to share in the inheritance. No saint qualifies himself because it's impossible!
Sounds to me as though you were never taught these important truths of the Gospel, were you?
P.S. A question for those who naively think the term "all" is always used in the distributive sense. Given what Mk 10:27 teaches, do we have a contradiction in the bible since God cannot lie, cannot deny himself, cannot change? Or is "all" used in the limited sense?
OK...we'll take one item at a time. You said in your opening post that Jesus' death of the Cross made salvation possible for all men, clearly implying that Jesus himself is the potential or possible savior of all men, thereby further implying that the salvation of all men is ultimately contingent on conditions they must fulfill, correct? These demands or conditions of the Gospel very likely being faith and repentance? And once someone fulfills these requirements, that frees God up to save that person. Does this describe your understanding of the New Covenant and the Gospel?
Jeremiah wrote:
Jer 10:23
23 I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own;
it is not for man to direct his steps.
NIV
A great companion verse that instructs us as to Who does direct man's steps is this one:
Prov 16:9
9 In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines [directs] his steps.
NIV
Because of the many, varied and imaginative assumptions over these many centuries that have been brought to bear upon passages like these by the sons of men (cf. also Prov 16:1; 19:21; 21:1, 30), these passages are historically among the most controversial in all the bible due to the many questions they raise -- even within Christendom to this very day. The initial natural reaction of many saints and all sinners alike is: How can this be? How can a righteous and just God hold his "free" moral agents morally accountable to Him if they are not in control of their life? Or since God directs man's steps, then how isn't a thrice Holy God morally culpable for all the sins that men commit? Or how is it, then, that God cannot be the Author of sin? Or how is that God cannot be uber-hypocrital for condemning his moral agents for all their sinful activities which He himself is directing, etc., etc.? These are some very serious questions with even more profoundly significant implications. But it would be well beyond the scope of this post and subsequent posts in this series to adequately tackle this line of inquiry. But I will commit to a brief word.
I assume most of us have heard of John Milton's classical work of poetry "Paradise Lost"? Well, when Adam fell, more than Paradise was lost. More than A&E's innocence was lost. They also lost their freedom and, thus, became slaves. Once we accept this fact, the many intricate pieces to the puzzle of God's free will how it relates to man's bondage to sin, his sin nature, to the devil and to the world will start to fall into place because you'll be working with a thoroughly biblical presupposition.
The second thing that we have to understand that just because Adam unwittingly chose to relinquish his freedom and become a slave, thereby becoming something far less than what God intended for Adam and his progeny, does not mean that God lowered his holy, righteous and good standard to also become something less in order to accommodate man's wickedness. In other words, God did not cease to be Who and What He is in his essence. Instead, the Three Persons of the Godhead basically said among themselves: Okay: Evil is in the world with all its deceitfulness and destructive consequences, so if want to save anyone We MUST fix it.
Thirdly, while a great deal has been written by Reformed and Non-Reformed alike regarding the various aspects to God's will, e.g. decretive will, prescriptive will, permissive will, affective will, etc., it never ceases to amaze me that I have yet to read of anyone ascribing to God his Ideal Will which is the Goal of all the others. Perhaps this is because most people conflate God's "perfect" will in this present construct of a fallen world with his "ideal" will in the Eternal Perfect Age to come. A couple of quick examples to explain the differences. In the Perfect Eternal Kingdom Age to come, will God ever have to repeat with anyone in his kingdom what he did with Job when He tested him twice in this fallen world to teach valuable theological and practical lessons to his non-Glorified saints? Or will he ever have to permit evil to be done to any "Joseph" in his eternal Perfect Kingdom in order to serve some greater good? Since the answer to these rhetorical questions should be obvious to all, we can begin to understand how God's perfect will in this age differs from what his ideal will will be like in the age to come. God can indeed "permit" a great deal of evil to abound and even flourish in this age in order to serve a much greater good not only in this age but in the age to come since saints became even stronger, assuring their entrance into the eternal, visible Kingdom of God. Let's move on to what the central point of this series of posts is.
My objective is that we should look carefully at Nature, i.e. Natural Revelation because it strongly affirms what the above quoted passages in Special Revelation teach. Man is not in control of his life, not even from a natural, horizontal or "under the sun" perspective. Therefore, how much less from a divine, vertical and eternal angle? This is all I wish to demonstrate from divine and natural revelation. My goal is not to prove how God does that; for that would be embarking on a fool's errand:
Prov 20:24
24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD.
How then can anyone understand his own way?
NIV
What exactly happens when God's perfect will intersects with man's will is a mystery. Scripture doesn't lay out for us the "secret things" of God (Deut 29:29), nor can we understand the supernatural. All we can do is humbly embrace both types of His revelation by faith and believe Him, while also acknowledging that while his will always prevails, He does no violence to ours; for we are all willing actors whom He directs on his world stage. And for those of us who know we are among his chosen, covenant people we should be eternally grateful that he has chosen to save us according to the good pleasure of his will and to the praise of his infinite glory. We should be rejoicing that He is in absolute control and not us! That He who began his good work of salvation in us will indeed bring it to completion on the Day of the Lord. These truths should bring us great comfort and delight in the Lord, rather than angst and blasphemies against Him.
Jer 10:23
23 I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own;
it is not for man to direct his steps.
NIV
A great companion verse that instructs us as to Who does direct man's steps is this one:
Prov 16:9
9 In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines [directs] his steps.
NIV
Because of the many, varied and imaginative assumptions over these many centuries that have been brought to bear upon passages like these by the sons of men (cf. also Prov 16:1; 19:21; 21:1, 30), these passages are historically among the most controversial in all the bible due to the many questions they raise -- even within Christendom to this very day. The initial natural reaction of many saints and all sinners alike is: How can this be? How can a righteous and just God hold his "free" moral agents morally accountable to Him if they are not in control of their life? Or since God directs man's steps, then how isn't a thrice Holy God morally culpable for all the sins that men commit? Or how is it, then, that God cannot be the Author of sin? Or how is that God cannot be uber-hypocrital for condemning his moral agents for all their sinful activities which He himself is directing, etc., etc.? These are some very serious questions with even more profoundly significant implications. But it would be well beyond the scope of this post and subsequent posts in this series to adequately tackle this line of inquiry. But I will commit to a brief word.
I assume most of us have heard of John Milton's classical work of poetry "Paradise Lost"? Well, when Adam fell, more than Paradise was lost. More than A&E's innocence was lost. They also lost their freedom and, thus, became slaves. Once we accept this fact, the many intricate pieces to the puzzle of God's free will how it relates to man's bondage to sin, his sin nature, to the devil and to the world will start to fall into place because you'll be working with a thoroughly biblical presupposition.
The second thing that we have to understand that just because Adam unwittingly chose to relinquish his freedom and become a slave, thereby becoming something far less than what God intended for Adam and his progeny, does not mean that God lowered his holy, righteous and good standard to also become something less in order to accommodate man's wickedness. In other words, God did not cease to be Who and What He is in his essence. Instead, the Three Persons of the Godhead basically said among themselves: Okay: Evil is in the world with all its deceitfulness and destructive consequences, so if want to save anyone We MUST fix it.
Thirdly, while a great deal has been written by Reformed and Non-Reformed alike regarding the various aspects to God's will, e.g. decretive will, prescriptive will, permissive will, affective will, etc., it never ceases to amaze me that I have yet to read of anyone ascribing to God his Ideal Will which is the Goal of all the others. Perhaps this is because most people conflate God's "perfect" will in this present construct of a fallen world with his "ideal" will in the Eternal Perfect Age to come. A couple of quick examples to explain the differences. In the Perfect Eternal Kingdom Age to come, will God ever have to repeat with anyone in his kingdom what he did with Job when He tested him twice in this fallen world to teach valuable theological and practical lessons to his non-Glorified saints? Or will he ever have to permit evil to be done to any "Joseph" in his eternal Perfect Kingdom in order to serve some greater good? Since the answer to these rhetorical questions should be obvious to all, we can begin to understand how God's perfect will in this age differs from what his ideal will will be like in the age to come. God can indeed "permit" a great deal of evil to abound and even flourish in this age in order to serve a much greater good not only in this age but in the age to come since saints became even stronger, assuring their entrance into the eternal, visible Kingdom of God. Let's move on to what the central point of this series of posts is.
My objective is that we should look carefully at Nature, i.e. Natural Revelation because it strongly affirms what the above quoted passages in Special Revelation teach. Man is not in control of his life, not even from a natural, horizontal or "under the sun" perspective. Therefore, how much less from a divine, vertical and eternal angle? This is all I wish to demonstrate from divine and natural revelation. My goal is not to prove how God does that; for that would be embarking on a fool's errand:
Prov 20:24
24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD.
How then can anyone understand his own way?
NIV
What exactly happens when God's perfect will intersects with man's will is a mystery. Scripture doesn't lay out for us the "secret things" of God (Deut 29:29), nor can we understand the supernatural. All we can do is humbly embrace both types of His revelation by faith and believe Him, while also acknowledging that while his will always prevails, He does no violence to ours; for we are all willing actors whom He directs on his world stage. And for those of us who know we are among his chosen, covenant people we should be eternally grateful that he has chosen to save us according to the good pleasure of his will and to the praise of his infinite glory. We should be rejoicing that He is in absolute control and not us! That He who began his good work of salvation in us will indeed bring it to completion on the Day of the Lord. These truths should bring us great comfort and delight in the Lord, rather than angst and blasphemies against Him.
Gen 1:14-19
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day.
NIV
On the fourth day, God created Time. The celestial bodies were created to "serve as signs to mark out seasons, days and years". These years, seasons, months, weeks and days are temporal boundaries or markers that were created to govern the movement of time on a grand scale, and on a smaller scale to govern each passing day and night and to separate the light from the darkness. And so with each passing day, mankind is reminded that the sun governs the day while the moon governs the night, and in so doing Day and Night govern the movement of all life on earth -- sea life, bird life, creeping life, crawling life, wildlife, livestock and, of course, human life. Scripture also describes this fourth day of creation as God's covenant with Day and Night in which he appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth (Jer 33:25).
Many people believe Time is the most mysterious aspect of all creation due to its metaphysical nature. And I totally agree. To digress just a little, Nathan Woods in his timeless classic (bad pun intended) "The Trinity in the Universe" likened Time to the Third Person of the Godhead. For just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, likewise Time necessarily proceeds from Space through Matter. And just as Time cannot exist apart from these latter two components, neither can any of the tripartite components of the universe exist apart from the other two.
Many men, over the centuries, have expressed their respect and reverence for Time. Here are are just several quotes. This first one struck me the most coming from Charles Darwin:
A man who dares to waste one hour of life has not discovered the value of life - Charles Darwin
Tough times never last, but tough people do - Robert H. Schuller
Time is a created thing. To say ‘I don't have time,' is like saying, ‘I don't want to' - Lao Tzu
Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin. - Mother Teresa
Time is the most valuable thing on earth: time to think, time to act, time to extend our fraternal relations, time to become better men, time to become better women, time to become better and more independent citizens - Samuel Gompers
Time and tide wait for no man. - anonymous
Time is money. - Benjamin Franklin
Time is more valuable than money. You can get more money, but you cannot get more time - Jim Rohn
Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. - Theophrastus
Life, if well lived, is long enough. - Seneca
It's being here now that's important. There's no past and there's no future. Time is a very misleading thing. All there is ever, is the now. We can gain experience from the past, but we can't relive it; and we can hope for the future, but we don't know if there is one. - George Harrison
For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity - C.S. Lewis
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/quotes-about-time
The above is just a modest sampling of how some great thinkers in this world have thought about Time and its value. Time is a great gift that is given to the human race. Think about that! We didn't even consciously receive it. It was simply sovereignly bestowed upon us by God's will. We unconsciously received it in the darkness of our mother's womb in Space and Time. Now all we can do is be thankful to the Lord for each moment he gives us; for he has numbered all our days (Ps 139:16) -- the few days of it there are (Eccl 2:3) -- so few, in fact, the apostle likened our time here on earth as a mere mist or vapor that is here one moment and gone the next (Jas 4:14).
In the next post, we'll examine time from the biblical perspective.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day.
NIV
On the fourth day, God created Time. The celestial bodies were created to "serve as signs to mark out seasons, days and years". These years, seasons, months, weeks and days are temporal boundaries or markers that were created to govern the movement of time on a grand scale, and on a smaller scale to govern each passing day and night and to separate the light from the darkness. And so with each passing day, mankind is reminded that the sun governs the day while the moon governs the night, and in so doing Day and Night govern the movement of all life on earth -- sea life, bird life, creeping life, crawling life, wildlife, livestock and, of course, human life. Scripture also describes this fourth day of creation as God's covenant with Day and Night in which he appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth (Jer 33:25).
Many people believe Time is the most mysterious aspect of all creation due to its metaphysical nature. And I totally agree. To digress just a little, Nathan Woods in his timeless classic (bad pun intended) "The Trinity in the Universe" likened Time to the Third Person of the Godhead. For just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, likewise Time necessarily proceeds from Space through Matter. And just as Time cannot exist apart from these latter two components, neither can any of the tripartite components of the universe exist apart from the other two.
Many men, over the centuries, have expressed their respect and reverence for Time. Here are are just several quotes. This first one struck me the most coming from Charles Darwin:
A man who dares to waste one hour of life has not discovered the value of life - Charles Darwin
Tough times never last, but tough people do - Robert H. Schuller
Time is a created thing. To say ‘I don't have time,' is like saying, ‘I don't want to' - Lao Tzu
Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin. - Mother Teresa
Time is the most valuable thing on earth: time to think, time to act, time to extend our fraternal relations, time to become better men, time to become better women, time to become better and more independent citizens - Samuel Gompers
Time and tide wait for no man. - anonymous
Time is money. - Benjamin Franklin
Time is more valuable than money. You can get more money, but you cannot get more time - Jim Rohn
Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. - Theophrastus
Life, if well lived, is long enough. - Seneca
It's being here now that's important. There's no past and there's no future. Time is a very misleading thing. All there is ever, is the now. We can gain experience from the past, but we can't relive it; and we can hope for the future, but we don't know if there is one. - George Harrison
For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity - C.S. Lewis
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/quotes-about-time
The above is just a modest sampling of how some great thinkers in this world have thought about Time and its value. Time is a great gift that is given to the human race. Think about that! We didn't even consciously receive it. It was simply sovereignly bestowed upon us by God's will. We unconsciously received it in the darkness of our mother's womb in Space and Time. Now all we can do is be thankful to the Lord for each moment he gives us; for he has numbered all our days (Ps 139:16) -- the few days of it there are (Eccl 2:3) -- so few, in fact, the apostle likened our time here on earth as a mere mist or vapor that is here one moment and gone the next (Jas 4:14).
In the next post, we'll examine time from the biblical perspective.
The well known classical biblical passage about Time was penned by Solomon:
Eccl 3:1-8
1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
NIV
We saw in the last post that Samuel Gompers thought along similar lines: a time to think, a time to act, a time to shore up old relationships, etc.
These times and seasons for "every activity under the sun" are what direct our steps. We voluntarily respond to the times and seasons that have providentially come upon us. We voluntarily adjust our lives to cope the best way we can when times of evil come upon us, or we adjust our lives to participate in or celebrate the good times. When times are good, we are told to be happy; when times are bad we are told to consider both because God has made them both (Eccl 7:14).
Solomon also said about Time from the perspective of looking at it horizontally "under the sun":
Eccl 9:11
11 I have seen something else under the sun:
The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant
or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all.
But from the vertical perspective, Divine Providence happens to them all. (See link below.)
https://www.gotquestions.org/divine-providence.html
In other words, what Solomon is teaching is that life is uncertain. The swift think the race belongs to them; the strong think they have the battle won; the wise say to themselves they are secure so their food will come, etc. We can make plans and plan for this, and plan for that, and even plan for alternatives options but the plans of man's heart often come to nought, for it's the Lord's purpose in the end that prevails (Prov 19:21).
Solomon further reinforced his teaching in v.11 by the next verse that says:
Eccl 9:12
12 Moreover, no man knows when his hour will come:
As fish are caught in a cruel net,
or birds are taken in a snare,
so men are trapped by evil times
that fall unexpectedly upon them.
NIV
James the apostle certainly subscribed to the doctrine of Divine Providence even down to seemingly mundane human activities:
James 4:13-15
13 i]Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." 14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow . What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."[/i]
NIV
But even though all these things are true the Wise will know how and when to deal with the situation or circumstances in which they find themselves.
Eccl 8:5-6
5 Whoever obeys his command will come to no harm,
and the wise heart will know the proper time and procedure.
6 For there is a proper time and procedure for every matter,
though a man's misery weighs heavily upon him.
Solomon also taught that just as no man has power over the wind to contain it, so no one has power over the day of his death (Eccl 8:8a). The principle being taught here is that since no man knows his future (v.7), we are powerless to control time, generally, and the time of our death, specifically. Of course, the PTs of the world will immediately claim that suicides clearly refute the truth of this passage. But do they? Or do even suicides like that of Judas affirm the truth of Jer 10:23? Since God gives over people to their reprobate minds to commit all manner of sin (Rom 1:24-31), then why wouldn't murder of self be one of those sins?
To summarize, then, we once again see how Special and Natural Revelation beautifully and seamlessly harmonize with each other. Natural Revelation is the mirror image of Special Revelation. Divine Truth is very often played out on God's world stage.
One final thought: If anyone here still doubts that we're enslaved to Time, then ask yourself this question: Why is it that we surround ourselves with clocks no matter where we are. We wear watches, our cellphones tell us the time, our computers tell us the time, our wall clocks and alarm clocks alert us to time. So, just who serves what?
Eccl 3:1-8
1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
NIV
We saw in the last post that Samuel Gompers thought along similar lines: a time to think, a time to act, a time to shore up old relationships, etc.
These times and seasons for "every activity under the sun" are what direct our steps. We voluntarily respond to the times and seasons that have providentially come upon us. We voluntarily adjust our lives to cope the best way we can when times of evil come upon us, or we adjust our lives to participate in or celebrate the good times. When times are good, we are told to be happy; when times are bad we are told to consider both because God has made them both (Eccl 7:14).
Solomon also said about Time from the perspective of looking at it horizontally "under the sun":
Eccl 9:11
11 I have seen something else under the sun:
The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant
or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all.
But from the vertical perspective, Divine Providence happens to them all. (See link below.)
https://www.gotquestions.org/divine-providence.html
In other words, what Solomon is teaching is that life is uncertain. The swift think the race belongs to them; the strong think they have the battle won; the wise say to themselves they are secure so their food will come, etc. We can make plans and plan for this, and plan for that, and even plan for alternatives options but the plans of man's heart often come to nought, for it's the Lord's purpose in the end that prevails (Prov 19:21).
Solomon further reinforced his teaching in v.11 by the next verse that says:
Eccl 9:12
12 Moreover, no man knows when his hour will come:
As fish are caught in a cruel net,
or birds are taken in a snare,
so men are trapped by evil times
that fall unexpectedly upon them.
NIV
James the apostle certainly subscribed to the doctrine of Divine Providence even down to seemingly mundane human activities:
James 4:13-15
13 i]Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." 14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow . What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."[/i]
NIV
But even though all these things are true the Wise will know how and when to deal with the situation or circumstances in which they find themselves.
Eccl 8:5-6
5 Whoever obeys his command will come to no harm,
and the wise heart will know the proper time and procedure.
6 For there is a proper time and procedure for every matter,
though a man's misery weighs heavily upon him.
Solomon also taught that just as no man has power over the wind to contain it, so no one has power over the day of his death (Eccl 8:8a). The principle being taught here is that since no man knows his future (v.7), we are powerless to control time, generally, and the time of our death, specifically. Of course, the PTs of the world will immediately claim that suicides clearly refute the truth of this passage. But do they? Or do even suicides like that of Judas affirm the truth of Jer 10:23? Since God gives over people to their reprobate minds to commit all manner of sin (Rom 1:24-31), then why wouldn't murder of self be one of those sins?
To summarize, then, we once again see how Special and Natural Revelation beautifully and seamlessly harmonize with each other. Natural Revelation is the mirror image of Special Revelation. Divine Truth is very often played out on God's world stage.
One final thought: If anyone here still doubts that we're enslaved to Time, then ask yourself this question: Why is it that we surround ourselves with clocks no matter where we are. We wear watches, our cellphones tell us the time, our computers tell us the time, our wall clocks and alarm clocks alert us to time. So, just who serves what?
It appears Mr. Deciphers visit was cut short for one reason or another. I was ready to give him a lesson on the concepts of possibilities and miracles.
He seemed to think, as many do here, that God simply made salvation possible for all men; whereas the Reformed view is that God saves all that he predestined in eternity to save. It's one thing to say someone makes something possible and something else to say someone actually makes a thing come to past.
Scripture tells us that Sarah's womb was deader than a door nail. She could not bear children. But yet because of God's promise to Abraham that the heir to the promises God had made earlier to Abraham would come from Sarah's womb, that event didn't occur because God simply made it possible for her to bear a child in her old age, but rather because he actually made it come to past miraculously as he promised.
Ditto for the virgin birth of Christ. God didn't simply make it possible for Mary to conceive Jesus apart the usual, natural means, but rather he actually brought the Christ child into the world through a direct miracle.
He seemed to think, as many do here, that God simply made salvation possible for all men; whereas the Reformed view is that God saves all that he predestined in eternity to save. It's one thing to say someone makes something possible and something else to say someone actually makes a thing come to past.
Scripture tells us that Sarah's womb was deader than a door nail. She could not bear children. But yet because of God's promise to Abraham that the heir to the promises God had made earlier to Abraham would come from Sarah's womb, that event didn't occur because God simply made it possible for her to bear a child in her old age, but rather because he actually made it come to past miraculously as he promised.
Ditto for the virgin birth of Christ. God didn't simply make it possible for Mary to conceive Jesus apart the usual, natural means, but rather he actually brought the Christ child into the world through a direct miracle.
What was the consequence of Adam's sin?
How many people who have died will be raised from the dead?
So, how many people did Jesus save from the first death?
How many will He save also from the second death?
Why does this not make Him the Saviour (from death) of all men, but especially of those who believe?
How many people who have died will be raised from the dead?
So, how many people did Jesus save from the first death?
How many will He save also from the second death?
Why does this not make Him the Saviour (from death) of all men, but especially of those who believe?
It appears Mr. Deciphers visit was cut short for one reason or another. I was ready to give him a lesson on the concepts of possibilities and miracles.
He seemed to think, as many do here, that God simply made salvation possible for all men; whereas the Reformed view is that God saves all that he predestined in eternity to save. It's one thing to say someone makes something possible and something else to say someone actually makes a thing come to past.
Scripture tells us that Sarah's womb was deader than a door nail. She could not bear children. But yet because of God's promise to Abraham that the heir to the promises God had made earlier to Abraham would come from Sarah's womb, that event didn't occur because God simply made it possible for her to bear a child in her old age, but rather because he actually made it come to past miraculously as he promised.
Ditto for the virgin birth of Christ. God didn't simply make it possible for Mary to conceive Jesus apart the usual, natural means, but rather he actually brought the Christ child into the world through a direct miracle.
He seemed to think, as many do here, that God simply made salvation possible for all men; whereas the Reformed view is that God saves all that he predestined in eternity to save. It's one thing to say someone makes something possible and something else to say someone actually makes a thing come to past.
Scripture tells us that Sarah's womb was deader than a door nail. She could not bear children. But yet because of God's promise to Abraham that the heir to the promises God had made earlier to Abraham would come from Sarah's womb, that event didn't occur because God simply made it possible for her to bear a child in her old age, but rather because he actually made it come to past miraculously as he promised.
Ditto for the virgin birth of Christ. God didn't simply make it possible for Mary to conceive Jesus apart the usual, natural means, but rather he actually brought the Christ child into the world through a direct miracle.
Because he doesn't actually save all men, which is precisely the reason for the qualifying clause at the end of the text.
Also because Paul identified who "all men" are earlier in the book. All men are not Jews and Gentiles. They are just Gentiles. Therefore, "all" is being used in the limited sense (as it often is) since Paul did not have each and every person in the world in mind.
Also because Paul identified who "all men" are earlier in the book. All men are not Jews and Gentiles. They are just Gentiles. Therefore, "all" is being used in the limited sense (as it often is) since Paul did not have each and every person in the world in mind.
You avoided answering 4 out of five questions. That's a very poor record. 20%.
Could you answer the other four questions?
What was the consequence of Adam's sin?
How many people who have died will be raised from the dead?
So, how many people did Jesus save from the first death?
How many will He save also from the second death?
Why does this not make Him the Saviour (from death) of all men, but especially of those who believe?
If the wages of sin is death, and at the end of the age Jesus raises every person who died, He must have paid the penalty for every person who died whom He raises. That makes Him the Saviour of all men. Since He then sends some whom he raises to the second death, but not those who believe in Jesus, He is the Saviour of all men since He raises all men out of death; but especially of those who believe in Jesus, since He not only raises them out of the dead but also delivers them from the second death.
Could you answer the other four questions?
What was the consequence of Adam's sin?
How many people who have died will be raised from the dead?
So, how many people did Jesus save from the first death?
How many will He save also from the second death?
Why does this not make Him the Saviour (from death) of all men, but especially of those who believe?
If the wages of sin is death, and at the end of the age Jesus raises every person who died, He must have paid the penalty for every person who died whom He raises. That makes Him the Saviour of all men. Since He then sends some whom he raises to the second death, but not those who believe in Jesus, He is the Saviour of all men since He raises all men out of death; but especially of those who believe in Jesus, since He not only raises them out of the dead but also delivers them from the second death.
Wrong. Christ's death was for all those appointed to salvation out of all humanity. There is no contingency on our part because it is God the Father who fills us with the faith and repentance that leads to salvation. It is the Father who builds up the body of Christ when Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit which makes us the temple of both Father and Son. If God died just for the Jews, not all Jews would be saved. Those saved would be Jews. Christ died for all mankind, but not all will be saved. Christ died for all, but those saved are chosen by the Father and are given to the Son who baptizes them with the Holy Spirit which is a portal through which the Father and Son communicate, speak through, and empower the individual indwelt. Because Jesus died for all, salvation is not just limited to the Jews.
I don't have to answer your four questions because none of them are relevant to the issue or in the context of 1Tim 4:10. I don't waste my time with non sequiturs. You keep avoiding that context of 4:10 and the larger context of the book itself (2:1-7). It's this latter passage that reveals Paul's mindset and what HE meant by "all men", which Timothy, another Jew, would have understood. And he confirms this mindset in 4:10 with the qualifying clause "especially of those who believe".
Let me lay it out for you one more time a little bit differently and go a little bit deeper into the context as well.
1. in 1:15-16, Paul told Timothy that Christ came into the world to save sinners -- NOT "all" sinners or each and every sinner. Paul goes on to relate to Timothy how God was merciful to him the worst of all sinners so that Christ might display through him his unlimited patience for those [sinners] who would believe on him and receive eternal life. Clearly, "sinners" is qualified in this passage also since Christ's infinite patience extended to his Father's elect, i.e. those who would actually come to believe on him (See 2Pet 3:8ff. for a very similar teaching.) Also up to this point in his epistle, God sending Christ into the world to save sinners could easily be construed by Timothy to mean Christ came to save only his OC people -- JEWISH sinners.
2. In 1:1 Paul told Timothy that he was an apostle by the command of God OUR Savior and of Christ Jesus OUR hope. Timothy, being a fellow Jew, would or could naturally construe this as meaning that God was the Savior and Christ was the hope of his chosen, covenant people Israel. And this is precisely why Paul didn't leave it like that. He wanted Timothy to clearly understand that God's great salvation extended to "all" men -- men other than Jews! Or as the Sovereign Grace expositor pointed out -- that God's salvation extended to ALL KINDS of men -- not just Jews.
3. In 2: 1, Paul urged Timothy that prayers and intercessions and thanksgiving be made for "everyone" -- or more explicitly for kings and and all in authority. So, he's not even urging here that these prayers, etc. be made for everyone in the distributive sense, since he again qualified his exhortation by limiting "everyone" to kings and all those in authority. There's no need to take "everyone" in the distributive sense since Paul himself didn't explicitly express himself in that sense. Plus Paul here is getting ready to make his point about Gentiles, since "kings and all those in authority" would be referring to Gentiles.
4. In 2:4-6, Paul reveals the affective will of God (not to be confused with his decretive will) in that He desires for all [kinds of] men to be saved because there's one mediator between God and men who gave himself as a ransom to all [kinds of] men. What kinds of men? Even a cursory reading of the bible will tell us that God always intended to bring his salvation through his OC people the Jews to the NATIONS of the world. But this is far cry from saying that God always intended to save the entire world in the distributive sense.
5. In 2:7, Paul tells Timothy that what he just got done saying in vv. 4-6, was the very purpose for why God appointed him a herald, an apostle and teacher of the true faith. But to whom specifically? Paul didn't say to the entire world. Or even to Jews and Gentiles! His mission was to the Gentiles! In Paul's mind "all men" = Gentiles or even more specifically the Gentile Nations. "All men", therefore, can only be understood in the limited sense. The "Gentiles" to whom God sent Paul qualifies "all men". If Paul meant to say that God is the Savior or all men in the distributive sense, then Paul would have had to include the Jews somewhere in his statement.
6. In 4:10, the qualifying clause at the end of the text limits the Saviorhood of God to those who believe. It's totally disingenuous and entirely gratuitous to say that God is the actual Savior of all who believe and at the same time NOT the actual Savior of all unbelievers, but only a wanna-be Savior. (Is "is" anything we want to make it to be, even when violating the Law of Non Contradiction?)
Now that Paul has clearly revealed to Timothy that the Gentiles have always been within the scope of God's grand scheme of redemptive history, freeing Timothy from any false notion or potential false idea that God is the Savior of the Jews only, he must now also guard his young protege from going to the other extreme with the respect to the Gentiles. God is most definitely not the Savior of unbelieving Gentiles, only of believers. And this is the reason for the qualifying clause at the end of v.10.
I find no need to go outside the intermediate context of the bible (the book under consideration) when the context makes it crystal clear how we should understand key terms or phrases. Plus you should also do an extensive word useage study of the Gr. term "pas" which is translated "all". You would learn that "pas" is often used in the limited sense.
Let me lay it out for you one more time a little bit differently and go a little bit deeper into the context as well.
1. in 1:15-16, Paul told Timothy that Christ came into the world to save sinners -- NOT "all" sinners or each and every sinner. Paul goes on to relate to Timothy how God was merciful to him the worst of all sinners so that Christ might display through him his unlimited patience for those [sinners] who would believe on him and receive eternal life. Clearly, "sinners" is qualified in this passage also since Christ's infinite patience extended to his Father's elect, i.e. those who would actually come to believe on him (See 2Pet 3:8ff. for a very similar teaching.) Also up to this point in his epistle, God sending Christ into the world to save sinners could easily be construed by Timothy to mean Christ came to save only his OC people -- JEWISH sinners.
2. In 1:1 Paul told Timothy that he was an apostle by the command of God OUR Savior and of Christ Jesus OUR hope. Timothy, being a fellow Jew, would or could naturally construe this as meaning that God was the Savior and Christ was the hope of his chosen, covenant people Israel. And this is precisely why Paul didn't leave it like that. He wanted Timothy to clearly understand that God's great salvation extended to "all" men -- men other than Jews! Or as the Sovereign Grace expositor pointed out -- that God's salvation extended to ALL KINDS of men -- not just Jews.
3. In 2: 1, Paul urged Timothy that prayers and intercessions and thanksgiving be made for "everyone" -- or more explicitly for kings and and all in authority. So, he's not even urging here that these prayers, etc. be made for everyone in the distributive sense, since he again qualified his exhortation by limiting "everyone" to kings and all those in authority. There's no need to take "everyone" in the distributive sense since Paul himself didn't explicitly express himself in that sense. Plus Paul here is getting ready to make his point about Gentiles, since "kings and all those in authority" would be referring to Gentiles.
4. In 2:4-6, Paul reveals the affective will of God (not to be confused with his decretive will) in that He desires for all [kinds of] men to be saved because there's one mediator between God and men who gave himself as a ransom to all [kinds of] men. What kinds of men? Even a cursory reading of the bible will tell us that God always intended to bring his salvation through his OC people the Jews to the NATIONS of the world. But this is far cry from saying that God always intended to save the entire world in the distributive sense.
5. In 2:7, Paul tells Timothy that what he just got done saying in vv. 4-6, was the very purpose for why God appointed him a herald, an apostle and teacher of the true faith. But to whom specifically? Paul didn't say to the entire world. Or even to Jews and Gentiles! His mission was to the Gentiles! In Paul's mind "all men" = Gentiles or even more specifically the Gentile Nations. "All men", therefore, can only be understood in the limited sense. The "Gentiles" to whom God sent Paul qualifies "all men". If Paul meant to say that God is the Savior or all men in the distributive sense, then Paul would have had to include the Jews somewhere in his statement.
6. In 4:10, the qualifying clause at the end of the text limits the Saviorhood of God to those who believe. It's totally disingenuous and entirely gratuitous to say that God is the actual Savior of all who believe and at the same time NOT the actual Savior of all unbelievers, but only a wanna-be Savior. (Is "is" anything we want to make it to be, even when violating the Law of Non Contradiction?)
Now that Paul has clearly revealed to Timothy that the Gentiles have always been within the scope of God's grand scheme of redemptive history, freeing Timothy from any false notion or potential false idea that God is the Savior of the Jews only, he must now also guard his young protege from going to the other extreme with the respect to the Gentiles. God is most definitely not the Savior of unbelieving Gentiles, only of believers. And this is the reason for the qualifying clause at the end of v.10.I find no need to go outside the intermediate context of the bible (the book under consideration) when the context makes it crystal clear how we should understand key terms or phrases. Plus you should also do an extensive word useage study of the Gr. term "pas" which is translated "all". You would learn that "pas" is often used in the limited sense.
I don't have to answer your four questions because none of them are relevant to the issue or in the context of 1Tim 4:10. I don't waste my time with non sequiturs. You keep avoiding that context of 4:10 and the larger context of the book itself (2:1-7). It's this latter passage that reveals Paul's mindset and what HE meant by "all men", which Timothy, another Jew, would have understood. And he confirms this mindset in 4:10 with the qualifying clause "especially of those who believe".
Let me lay it out for you one more time a little bit differently and go a little bit deeper into the context as well.
1. in 1:15-16, Paul told Timothy that Christ came into the world to save sinners -- NOT "all" sinners or each and every sinner. Paul goes on to relate to Timothy how God was merciful to him the worst of all sinners so that Christ might display through him his unlimited patience for those [sinners] who would believe on him and receive eternal life. Clearly, "sinners" is qualified in this passage also since Christ's infinite patience extended to his Father's elect, i.e. those who would actually come to believe on him (See 2Pet 3:8ff. for a very similar teaching.) Also up to this point in his epistle, God sending Christ into the world to save sinners could easily be construed by Timothy to mean Christ came to save only his OC people -- JEWISH sinners.
2. In 1:1 Paul told Timothy that he was an apostle by the command of God OUR Savior and of Christ Jesus OUR hope. Timothy, being a fellow Jew, would or could naturally construe this as meaning that God was the Savior and Christ was the hope of his chosen, covenant people Israel. And this is precisely why Paul didn't leave it like that. He wanted Timothy to clearly understand that God's great salvation extended to "all" men -- men other than Jews! Or as the Sovereign Grace expositor pointed out -- that God's salvation extended to ALL KINDS of men -- not just Jews.
3. In 2: 1, Paul urged Timothy that prayers and intercessions and thanksgiving be made for "everyone" -- or more explicitly for kings and and all in authority. So, he's not even urging here that these prayers, etc. be made for everyone in the distributive sense, since he again qualified his exhortation by limiting "everyone" to kings and all those in authority. There's no need to take "everyone" in the distributive sense since Paul himself didn't explicitly express himself in that sense. Plus Paul here is getting ready to make his point about Gentiles, since "kings and all those in authority" would be referring to Gentiles.
4. In 2:4-6, Paul reveals the affective will of God (not to be confused with his decretive will) in that He desires for all [kinds of] men to be saved because there's one mediator between God and men who gave himself as a ransom to all [kinds of] men. What kinds of men? Even a cursory reading of the bible will tell us that God always intended to bring his salvation through his OC people the Jews to the NATIONS of the world. But this is far cry from saying that God always intended to save the entire world in the distributive sense.
5. In 2:7, Paul tells Timothy that what he just got done saying in vv. 4-6, was the very purpose for why God appointed him a herald, an apostle and teacher of the true faith. But to whom specifically? Paul didn't say to the entire world. Or even to Jews and Gentiles! His mission was to the Gentiles! In Paul's mind "all men" = Gentiles or even more specifically the Gentile Nations. "All men", therefore, can only be understood in the limited sense. The "Gentiles" to whom God sent Paul qualifies "all men". If Paul meant to say that God is the Savior or all men in the distributive sense, then Paul would have had to include the Jews somewhere in his statement.
6. In 4:10, the qualifying clause at the end of the text limits the Saviorhood of God to those who believe. It's totally disingenuous and entirely gratuitous to say that God is the actual Savior of all who believe and at the same time NOT the actual Savior of all unbelievers, but only a wanna-be Savior. (Is "is" anything we want to make it to be, even when violating the Law of Non Contradiction?) Now that Paul has clearly revealed to Timothy that the Gentiles have always been within the scope of God's grand scheme of redemptive history, freeing Timothy from any false notion or potential false idea that God is the Savior of the Jews only, he must now also guard his young protege from going to the other extreme with the respect to the Gentiles. God is most definitely not the Savior of unbelieving Gentiles, only of believers. And this is the reason for the qualifying clause at the end of v.10.
I find no need to go outside the intermediate context of the bible (the book under consideration) when the context makes it crystal clear how we should understand key terms or phrases. Plus you should also do an extensive word useage study of the Gr. term "pas" which is translated "all". You would learn that "pas" is often used in the limited sense.
Let me lay it out for you one more time a little bit differently and go a little bit deeper into the context as well.
1. in 1:15-16, Paul told Timothy that Christ came into the world to save sinners -- NOT "all" sinners or each and every sinner. Paul goes on to relate to Timothy how God was merciful to him the worst of all sinners so that Christ might display through him his unlimited patience for those [sinners] who would believe on him and receive eternal life. Clearly, "sinners" is qualified in this passage also since Christ's infinite patience extended to his Father's elect, i.e. those who would actually come to believe on him (See 2Pet 3:8ff. for a very similar teaching.) Also up to this point in his epistle, God sending Christ into the world to save sinners could easily be construed by Timothy to mean Christ came to save only his OC people -- JEWISH sinners.
2. In 1:1 Paul told Timothy that he was an apostle by the command of God OUR Savior and of Christ Jesus OUR hope. Timothy, being a fellow Jew, would or could naturally construe this as meaning that God was the Savior and Christ was the hope of his chosen, covenant people Israel. And this is precisely why Paul didn't leave it like that. He wanted Timothy to clearly understand that God's great salvation extended to "all" men -- men other than Jews! Or as the Sovereign Grace expositor pointed out -- that God's salvation extended to ALL KINDS of men -- not just Jews.
3. In 2: 1, Paul urged Timothy that prayers and intercessions and thanksgiving be made for "everyone" -- or more explicitly for kings and and all in authority. So, he's not even urging here that these prayers, etc. be made for everyone in the distributive sense, since he again qualified his exhortation by limiting "everyone" to kings and all those in authority. There's no need to take "everyone" in the distributive sense since Paul himself didn't explicitly express himself in that sense. Plus Paul here is getting ready to make his point about Gentiles, since "kings and all those in authority" would be referring to Gentiles.
4. In 2:4-6, Paul reveals the affective will of God (not to be confused with his decretive will) in that He desires for all [kinds of] men to be saved because there's one mediator between God and men who gave himself as a ransom to all [kinds of] men. What kinds of men? Even a cursory reading of the bible will tell us that God always intended to bring his salvation through his OC people the Jews to the NATIONS of the world. But this is far cry from saying that God always intended to save the entire world in the distributive sense.
5. In 2:7, Paul tells Timothy that what he just got done saying in vv. 4-6, was the very purpose for why God appointed him a herald, an apostle and teacher of the true faith. But to whom specifically? Paul didn't say to the entire world. Or even to Jews and Gentiles! His mission was to the Gentiles! In Paul's mind "all men" = Gentiles or even more specifically the Gentile Nations. "All men", therefore, can only be understood in the limited sense. The "Gentiles" to whom God sent Paul qualifies "all men". If Paul meant to say that God is the Savior or all men in the distributive sense, then Paul would have had to include the Jews somewhere in his statement.
6. In 4:10, the qualifying clause at the end of the text limits the Saviorhood of God to those who believe. It's totally disingenuous and entirely gratuitous to say that God is the actual Savior of all who believe and at the same time NOT the actual Savior of all unbelievers, but only a wanna-be Savior. (Is "is" anything we want to make it to be, even when violating the Law of Non Contradiction?)
Now that Paul has clearly revealed to Timothy that the Gentiles have always been within the scope of God's grand scheme of redemptive history, freeing Timothy from any false notion or potential false idea that God is the Savior of the Jews only, he must now also guard his young protege from going to the other extreme with the respect to the Gentiles. God is most definitely not the Savior of unbelieving Gentiles, only of believers. And this is the reason for the qualifying clause at the end of v.10.I find no need to go outside the intermediate context of the bible (the book under consideration) when the context makes it crystal clear how we should understand key terms or phrases. Plus you should also do an extensive word useage study of the Gr. term "pas" which is translated "all". You would learn that "pas" is often used in the limited sense.
PaulThomson said:
What was the consequence of Adam's sin?
How many people who have died will be raised from the dead?
So, how many people did Jesus save from the first death?
How many will He save also from the second death?
Why does this not make Him the Saviour (from death) of all men, but especially of those who believe?
Oh...so that's how it works? Well, then, take up the slack of Mr. Studier by answering the six questions I presented to him 1Tim 4:10 -- all of them relative to the text and/or his interpretation which is identical to yours.
Or if you can't tackle those six questions, such as you tried with your lame" John the lifeguard" analogy with respect to my very first question to Studier, then show me how my six-point argument for my interpretation of 4:10 is wrong.
Also, Jesus doesn't save all men from death, since after the resurrection of the unjust and their judgment, they are sent to their second death, i.e. the Lake of Fire -- and this because they were never saved from the First Death! Your eschatology is as screwy as your soteriology.
Or if you can't tackle those six questions, such as you tried with your lame" John the lifeguard" analogy with respect to my very first question to Studier, then show me how my six-point argument for my interpretation of 4:10 is wrong.
Also, Jesus doesn't save all men from death, since after the resurrection of the unjust and their judgment, they are sent to their second death, i.e. the Lake of Fire -- and this because they were never saved from the First Death! Your eschatology is as screwy as your soteriology.
Oh...so that's how it works? Well, then, take up the slack of Mr. Studier by answering the six questions I presented to him 1Tim 4:10 -- all of them relative to the text and/or his interpretation which is identical to yours.
Or if you can't tackle those six questions, such as you tried with your lame" John the lifeguard" analogy with respect to my very first question to Studier, then show me how my six-point argument for my interpretation of 4:10 is wrong.
Also, Jesus doesn't save all men from death, since after the resurrection of the unjust and their judgment, they are sent to their second death, i.e. the Lake of Fire -- and this because they were never saved from the First Death! Your eschatology is as screwy as your soteriology.
Or if you can't tackle those six questions, such as you tried with your lame" John the lifeguard" analogy with respect to my very first question to Studier, then show me how my six-point argument for my interpretation of 4:10 is wrong.
Also, Jesus doesn't save all men from death, since after the resurrection of the unjust and their judgment, they are sent to their second death, i.e. the Lake of Fire -- and this because they were never saved from the First Death! Your eschatology is as screwy as your soteriology.
PaulThomson said:
What was the consequence of Adam's sin?
How many people who have died will be raised from the dead?
So, how many people did Jesus save from the first death?
How many will He save also from the second death?
Why does this not make Him the Saviour (from death) of all men, but especially of those who believe?