soundoff
Unregistered User
(4/14/02 5:27 pm) Reply
Arminian Arguement using 1Timothy 4:10
One argument that the Arminian's like to bring up is in Timothy 4:10. We can observe this verse by reading the following:
1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe
We can examine this verse and dissect it by understanding the Greek and to find out if God is really the Savior of all men or if He is the Savior of all men of whom He had elected.
It is also very important to concede how the bible uses certain words consistently throughout the bible. Without this method one could make up his own rules, ideas and interpretation of how he visualizes each word. A person then can give it his or her own meaning. As we know that saved and salvation does not always mean eternal when it is used.
Savior of all men (swthr pantwn anqrwpwn). We can see that the same wording applying and cross-referencing the same word swthr, we will be able to tell if the word is used properly when we make an interpretation of the meaning.
Lets look at the following verse:
1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Savior, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
We can see that God is applied here. God it is said is our Savior. This is using the
verse and word correctly when applied to eternal life for those who believe in Christ as the
Resurrection and Redeemer.
Keeping this word in the right context it is easy to see how it is used.
We can observe that in 1 Tim. 4:10 that it says "especially for them that believe."
Then in the above verse it says the same thing for those who have Christ as their hope.
Paul emphasis the word "all" in the verse for those who are "especially" the ones in Christ.
So do we see this word as being used to mean the Savior for all men as the same as those who have hope in Christ? This cannot be done. We see that Paul meant that this verse coincides with the other verses to mean that God saved us from world judgment and keeps the world alive in a providential way. His grace through Christ has kept us from being destroyed by an early judgment against men.
Lets look at another verse to conjoin the thought on this matter:
1Ti 6:13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
RWP states this:
For in him (en autw gar). Proof of God's nearness, not stoic pantheism, but real immanence in God as God dwells in us. The three verbs (zwmen, kinoumeqa, esmen) form an ascending scale and reach a climax in God (life, movement, existence). Kinoumeqa is either direct middle present indicative (we move ourselves) or passive (we are moved).
So now we can see that God gives life to all. God is the Savior of all men because He is the one who gave grace to all the world that we would live until his purposes are finished through Jesus Christ.
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
This promise must be fulfilled and the only way to keep it going is to give mankind life by his mercy and through Jesus Christ.
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Notice how he upholds all things by the word of his power? It does not say by the power of his word.
God then is the Savior unto all men but as Paul said and emphasized the word, "especially" for those who are in Christ.
We can see that Paul says God our Savior for all men and then says especially for those who are in Christ. We do have two different thoughts here and we can see by the scriptures how it was used consistently throughout the bible.
We cannot use this scripture to say that Jesus is the Savior for all men or that God is the Savior of all men when applying it to eternal salvation. If Jesus was the Savior for all men then all are saved. If we use Universalism and conjoin it with this verse then all should be saved. Are all saved? NO! Christ is not a Savior to any one person until the blood is applied unto them.
This particular scripture is not talking about a potential salvation for all men. We cannot infer what is not there. It does not say potential Savior. Since it did not say potential Savior for all men then this is why Paul said "especially" for those who have hope in Christ. He was wanting to show us that God is a Savior for those who are in Christ and those who are not in Christ.
That God is a Savior for those who are of this world in the temporary life and for those who are in Christ. Those born again lost souls have both the benifit of this life and eternal life
He emphasized that Eternal Salvation only belongs to those who are in Him and for those who are in Him have the hope of Him being their Savior.
God saved the world from immediate destruction because of "the Promise” of the Savior and the world benefited from having another world judgment as He did with Noah.
Psa 17:7 Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.
JaRay
PaperCup Registered User
Posts: 53
(4/14/02 7:08 pm) Reply
Re: Arminian Arguement using 1Timothy 4:10
First off, Jesus said he came for the lost sheep of Israel.
Then he says, Kjv Mathew 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Kjv Mathew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
so to me its clear that Jesus came for certain ppl only, at first he was unwilling to help the gentile woman, and classified her as a dog.
now we see that she demonstrates faith as do the roman centurain with his servant. Jesus declares that he hasnt seen faith like that not with his own ppl.
so to me, the certain ppl he came for intially changes by the faith of the gentiles.
now we come to 1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe
if we take that verse literally, Jesus is the savior of all men, it says it very clearly, then it is re-enforced with -SPECIALLY of that beleive.
But, i must add, due to many other contexts through out scripture, not everyone is saved. Revelation clarifies this.
If your name is not found in the book of life, or you have received the mark of the beast which the bible prophiced that men will receive the mark, is bound for hell.
But, intially Jesus came for his ppl only - the lost sheep of israel, not the world. Something changed that made Jesus offer himself also to the world, Faith
Re: Arminian Arguement using 1Timothy 4:10
The rejection of the jews... as rom chap 11 shows, was the turning point, and infact says they are blinded to the truth of Christ till our time... the gentiles is done and 1 tim 4:10 is clear to me... and I think God has got the word to the english as a whole... fine... what kind of a God is it that sends a book of lies to us?
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (Here it clearly shows he even paid the price for the false ones, that rejected him.)
The false prophets in that verse are unsaved, they're bound for destruction. Peter says that even though they are unsaved Christ died for them. Some will not come to Him, that they might have salvation; they will not have Him to rule over them; they reject their salvation.
I could post atleast 100 verses you would have to change and not take on face value... if limited atonement is true... fact I bet 150... what about all the others that didn't have the greek to turn to... before it was widely accessible, were they all in the dark... ?
Second why would God not, in all his power and might give the english the word as written? Clearly Jesus came as the savior of the world... died for the sins of the world... all men... every men... the whole world... and all these others verses point to that... imho... otherwise you have to run and change every verse in the kjv niv nasb and all the others... even the nwt got it right... lol why would God lie to the english... or keep the word from them?
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 166
(4/14/02 8:11 pm) Reply
Re: Arminian Arguement using 1Timothy 4:10
soundoff:
I think lots of people miss the link here (at least what I see as being the link), by which the chain of thought hangs together. In verse 8 we find the words, as our version renders them; "the life that now is, and of that which is to come," I believe that these words give us the background on which we are to understand "all men..specially those that believe."
All men share in this present life ("the life that is now"); Acts 17:28 makes this clear, as well as 1 Tim. 6:13. Thus God gives life to all men, but specially to those who believe--that is, a life of a qualitatively (rather than merely quantitatively) different sort than the life all men enjoy by God's goodness. The rain is made to fall on the just and unjust, but those vines tended by the faithful vinedresser receive the life giving dew in a special way.
I see "the life that now is" in relation to the "all men," and "of that which is to come," specially relating to "those that believe."
"Who is the Savior. This is the second consolation, though it depends on the former; for the deliverance of which he speaks may be viewed as the fruit of hope. To make this more clear, it ought to be understood that this is an argument drawn from the less to the greater; for the word swthr is here a general term, and denotes one Who defends and preserves. He means that the kindness of God extends to all men. And if there is no man who does not feel the goodness of God towards him, and who is not a partaker of it, how much more shall it be experienced by the godly, who hope in him? Will he not take peculiar care in them? Will he not more freely pour out his bounty on them? In a word, will he not, in every respect, keep them safe to the end?" John Calvin; Commentaries, on 1 Tim. 4:10.
Psalm 36:5-6 Your steadfast love, O Lord, extends to the heavens, your faithfulness to the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; your judgments are like the great deep; man and beast you save, O Lord. (ESV)
-J
S.D.G
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 167
(4/14/02 8:15 pm) Reply
Re: Arminian Arguement using 1Timothy 4:10
Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. (KJV)
Psalm 36:5-6 Your steadfast love, O Lord, extends to the heavens, your faithfulness to the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; your judgments are like the great deep; man and beast you save, O Lord. (ESV)
Psalm 36:5-6 (6-7) Kurie en tw to eleoV sou kai h alhqeia sou ewV twn nefelwn h dikaiosunh sou esei orh Qeou ta krimata sou abussoV pollh anqrwpouV kai kthnh swseis Kurie. (Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs [Stuttgart: WŸrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935], repr. in 9th ed., 1971 (LXX)).
(Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967/77] (BHS) You’ll need this font).
Psalm 36:5-6 (35:6-7) Domine in caelo misericordia tua fides tua usque ad nubes iustitia tua quasi montes Domine iudicium tuum abyssus multa homines et iumenta salvos facies Domine. (Biblia Sacra Vulgata, 405 A.D.).
1 Tim. 4:8-10 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Saviour of all; i.e., preserver of all, but specially--more than preserving (giving life)--to those who believe--i.e. Saviour of the soul.
soundoff
Unregistered User
(4/14/02 8:56 pm) Reply
The Difference is this
Iam debating on the point that 1Timothy 4:10 cannot be used to prove that God is a Savior for all men concerning eternal salvation.
What I did not mention or say, is anything about limited atonement being true or false.
This is the difference. I'm not using this verse to back up atonement in any way. What I'm doing is showing how this verse cannot be used as said from above.
In other words I did not use other scriptures to back up atonement like the other 100 verses that can be used for it or against it. (limited or unlimited).
This was not the argument. The argument is based on how one cannot use this for going against Limited Atonement because the verse is not built to do such a thing.
Re: The Difference is this
Ahhh bro, but i was addressing this part of it...
We can examine this verse and dissect it by understanding the Greek and to find out if God is really the Savior of all men or if He is the Savior of all men of whom He had elected.
To me, Christ came to be the Savior of all men... but some chose to reject him.
soundoff
Unregistered User
(4/14/02 10:37 pm) Reply
I understand
but my main drive is we can dissect this verse to see either way and my position is that this verse is not talking about unlimited atonement.
I was talking about can we use this verse as some do to make a defense against limited atonement. I just believe that this verse is misused.
We can see that God is the Saviour of all men in the Providence way and a Saviour to those who "Especially" have hope in Christ. We can see two different thoughts here as Paul uses God's name for one part and Christ for another part.
God alone is not the Saviour of all men in the eternal salvation but it would be God the Son.
For example lets see how the others translate this and see if I'm on track.
MJKV 1Ti 4:10 For to this we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the preserver of all men, especially of those who believe.
I see this one is saying that God is the preserver of all men. This would be in agreement with God being the Saviour of all men in the Providence Way.
(Darby) for, for this we labour and suffer reproach, because we hope in a living God, who is preserver of all men, specially of those that believe.
Once again this verse shows the same reading/
KingJehu you see when all the translations do not agree in exact wording then we do need to dissect it and compare it to the Greek. The Greek is not wrong but our translations may have to clearify some verses.
Shipwreck your faith as Paul used this word did not mean to lose your salvation. Not until 19th century this word was not known by the scholars. The word is now known but it only means for a Jar not to be used for its original use. Like a Jar being cracked and cannot be used for liquids but the owner does not throw it away.
The owner uses it for beans or something solid and puts in on the shelf. The original use is not possible but still can be used for the owners need.
You see in 1Timothy we must studied this verse. Paul says for one to study to show thyself approved before God and men.
Men will challenge. Besides Paul was well learned and he had to teach many what the real meanings of the OT scriptures had meant and what the people had thought they meant.
This is why God gave teachers for the church. Now when it comes to the Word of God for Salvation and the gospel message this would not need a PHD to understand.
lol
One more issue. If Paul meant for all men in this verse to be the Saviour then he would never had to stress for those who have the hope in Him. He stressed this word "especially." The especially word shows that God is two kinds of Saviors, and one is in the Providential Way and the other is for those in Christ.
God is never left out when it comes to His creation and how all things are upheld by Him which is by the word of his power.
If it was not for God mankind would be destroyed by now.
JaRay
PaperCup Registered User
Posts: 54
(4/14/02 10:49 pm) Reply
Re: I understand
this is the response to ---
what kind of a God is it that sends a book of lies to us?
Well, God never promised us Book !!!
Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. - Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
My point is this, the bible, imo, is not perfected yet, there is yet to be one more translation offered to the table.
KJV - King Jesus Version
PaperCup
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 169
(4/14/02 11:07 pm) Reply
Re: I understand
Papercup:
While it may seem innocent on the surface, such a questioning of the Word is not innocent. To claim to be able to judge what is and is not God’s Word (i.e., to say the Word is imperfect) means to claim that whatever authority it has, it cannot be absolute; to claim to know what God would or would not say (how else could you know some parts are “imperfect”?). We can only know what God would or would not say if He revealed it, and thus you would have to basically claim to be God, or else to be enlightened to know by the Holy Spirit; but if you claim the latter then you disagree with 1800 years of Christianity, led by the same Spirit, who have the testimony that:
“...concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem; A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, [Oxford: Parker, 1845], The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).
"I need not prove by arguments what God Himself proves by His own words. When we read that God says He perpetually sees the entire earth, we prove thereby that He does see it because He Himself says He sees it. When we read that He rules all things He has created, we prove thereby that He rules, since He testifies that He rules. When we read that He ordains all things by His immediate judgment, it becomes evident by this very fact, since He confirms that He passes judgment. All other statements, said by men, require proofs and witnesses. God's word is His own witness, because whatever uncorrupted Truth says must be the undefiled testimony to truth." (Salvian the Presbyter; Fathers of the Church, [New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947], Vol. 3, pp. 68-69. The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter: The Governance of God, Book 3, section 1).
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 170
(4/14/02 11:37 pm) Reply
Re: Arminian Arguement using 1Timothy 4:10
“There is no question that this verse calls Jesus the Saviour of all, in contradistinction to those who believe. The use of "elect" there is simply non-sense and no Calvinist that I am familiar with has interpreted the verse that way. The question that needs to be asked, however,...is how is Jesus the Saviour of all?
The answer to this question destroys the idea that it is eternal Salvation of the soul...How is He the Saviour of all? In a different way than the "special" way in which He is the Saviour of those who believe.
To those who believe, He is specially a Saviour--for He gives them eternal salvation of their soul. To the "all" He is Saviour in a much different way. How?
"In a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them in their beings, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life;" says Gill, but is this simply special pleading by Gill (a Calvinist); hear Albert Barnes, a highly respected expositor who leans toward the Arminian persuasion: "Who is the Saviour of all men. This must be understood as denoting that he is the Saviour of all men in some sense which differs from what is immediately affirmed: "specially of those that believe." There is something pertaining to them in regard to salvation which does not pertain to "all men." It cannot mean that he brings all men to heaven, especially those who believe--for this would be nonsense. And if he brings all men actually to heaven, how can it be especially true that he does this in regard to those who believe? Does it mean that he saves others without believing? But this would be contrary to the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures. See Mark 16:16. When, therefore, it is said that he "is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe," it must mean that there is a sense in which it is true that he may be called the Saviour of all men, while, at the same time, it is actually true that those only are saved who believe...he is the Preserver of men, (Job 7:20,) for in this sense he may be said to save them from famine, and war, and peril--keeping them from day to day; comp. Psalm 107:28;..." (Barnes; New Testament Notes).
Augustine, the great bishop of Hippo, put the matter into this perspective; "...we speak justly when we say concerning any teacher of literature who is alone in a city, He teaches literature here to everybody,-not that all men learn, but that there is none who learns literature there who does not learn from him,-so we justly say, God teaches all men to come to Christ, not because all come, but because none comes in any other way." (On the Predestination of the Saints (To Hilary and Prosper), Chapter 14).” Quoted from here.
I see what your saying now... but to me the Providence way of salvation is covered by the blood of Christ as well... perhaps not, would have to look into that... in scripture... but to me their sins would have to be covered by the sinless blood of Christ. Now if Christ is God... and the word and spirit of God are one... I would think that those graced outside of Jacob's 12 tribes and Christians are atonement through the communion of the Spirit. Lets say Noah... are his sins covered by the blood of Christ... retroactive. Some believe this is why the saints rose upon his blood shedding... that His blood atoned for the sins of those that were in the Spirit of God.
As for the translation I just checked these here and they all seem to be the same, though which ones where built off solely off the KJV would be something to look into... and as to the Arminian doctrine I must confess I haven't read it as a whole... so don't know how they view it bro
YLT for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing.
Kjv For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Niv (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
Nas For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
Wesley's and here is the motive of our toiling and wrestling, because we have our hopes fixed on the ever-living God, who is the Saviour of all mankind, and especially of believers. Edited by: KJChristianWarrior at: 4/15/02 12:23:20 am
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 171
(4/15/02 12:52 am) Reply
Re: I understand
Jehu:
Your interpretation makes the passage say its opposite. “Jesus is the Saviour of all men, just like those who believe,” is how you’re interpreting it. That doesn’t work. That means everyone is saved apart from faith; it doesn’t say “is the buyer of redemption, if they accept it, for all men”--it says “Saviour”--its not something potential, its something actual. The real question is how is He Saviour of all, actually, and yet specially of those who believe?
The answer is found by interpreting the Bible with the Bible; every version (see above) uses the word for “saves” at Psalm 36:5-6; the KJV translators took the liberty of rendering the word dynamically, by context, and gave us “preserveth.” Almost all the revisions of the AV keep that translation choice. It is an acurate translation, because that is the exact sense of the word there. The RSV, ESV, Young’s Literal Translation, and others give the technical reading “saveth/saves.” God does not “save” (Grk. swseiV [from the exact same root as swthr in 1 Tim. 4:10]; Hebr. zTaShaYeH 03467) “beasts” (animals) in the sense of salvation of the soul. God providentially preserves them, and gives them life, 1 Tim. 6:13. Thus the rendering of the word as “preserveth” is a perfectly valid one.
W.E. Vine gives this meaning for “Savior” here: “soter (4990, swthr), "a savior, deliverer, preserver," is used (a) of God, Luke 1:47; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10 (in the sense of "preserver," since He gives "to all life and breath and all things"); Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; Jude 1:25;...” (Vine-Unger-White; Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old And New Testament Words [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996], p. 548).
The same sense is applied to the word in 1 Timothy 4:10; Paul tells Timothy that the living God is the Saviour (“Preserver”) to all men, and especially so to those that believe--“specially” being a word that means “above” or “beyond the normal” and shows that God is the Saviour of them (who believe, alone) in the soteriological context; He is the Saviour of their soul--something he is not to the “all men.” Thus is the Biblical interpretation, which fully explains the passage in light of other Scripture and preserves the distinction that is made by the word “specially.”
-J
S.D.G
Edited by: MonkeeSage at: 4/15/02 1:43:37 am
Re: I understand
Your interpretation makes the passage say its opposite. “Jesus is the Saviour of all men, just like those who believe,” is how you’re interpreting it. That doesn’t work. That means everyone is saved apart from faith; it doesn’t say “is the buyer of redemption, if they accept it, for all men”--it says “Saviour”--its not something potential, its something actual. The real question is how is He Saviour of all, actually, and yet specially of those who believe?
(Ahhh monkey... but to me Jesus is God... and therefor the Savior of all...)
Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible
1tim 4:10. therefore--Greek, "with a view to this." The reason why "we both ('both' is omitted in the oldest manuscripts) labor (endure hardship) and suffer reproach (some oldest manuscripts read 'strive') is because we have rested, and do rest our hope, on the living (and therefore, life-giving, 1 Timothy 4: God."
Saviour--even in this life (1 Timothy 4: .
specially of those that believe--Their "labor and reproach" are not inconsistent with their having from the living God, their Saviour, even the present life (Mark 10:30, "a hundred fold now in this time . . . with persecutions"), much more the life to come. If God is in a sense "Saviour" of unbelievers (1 Timothy 2:4, that is, is willing to be so everlastingly, and is temporally here their Preserver and Benefactor), much more of believers. He is the Saviour of all men potentially (1 Timothy 1:15); of believers alone effectually.
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
(I can see the merit for debate on both sides... and I would say my side would be... God is the Savior... "Both here and for Salvation, for all men, and Jesus is that atonement for all." and God is the Savior of all the living... to substain life by giving blessings... specially of those who believe? "In Christ... a merit more of blessing i.e. the powers of the Holy Ghost, and it's gifts.")
King,
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 172
(4/15/02 3:32 am) Reply
Re: I understand
I don’t accept Dr. Fausset as any authority on grammatical constructions, etymology, or lexicography--though he is a very insightful expositor at times. His commentary on this passage (in Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) is only a theological gloss--it does not seriously interact with the text--which is fine for a practical exposition, but not for exegetical concerns and doctrinal establishment.
The text says “is the Savior”--the verb is estin (“is”), and is in present time (tense) as a statement of fact (indicative mood); leaving no warrant for the assumption of any type of condition or qualification--it is already an actual fact when the Apostle states it, and nothing is left to be inferred about a “potential salvation” which will take place in the future--the point is that God is the Savior of all, specially those who believe; and that their (present) trusting in this fact is the motivation for their labours and sufferings (v. 10).
But the main problem is that your interpretation (with Fausset’s) makes the verse say exactly its opposite.
You: “Jesus [God] is the Saviour of all men, just like those who believe.”
Scripture: “God...is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.”
Your view destroys the distinction that the inspired Apostle made between “all men” and “those that believe;” thus making men who do not believe (“all men” being contradistinguished from “those that believe”), to be actually saved--saved without faith.
But the passage clearly presents to us the idea that Jesus is the Savior in some other way, more or beyond what he is to “all men,” to “those that believe.” (“malista adv. especially, above all, particularly, (very) greatly...” Gingrich-Danker; Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, [University of Chicago Press, 1983], 2nd edt., p. 121 [BAGD p. 489]).
In what way, beyond? He is the Savior of their soul.
Then how is He Saviour to “all men” (who do not believe)? Exactly as God is said to “save” men and beasts in Psalm 36:5-6.
What other explaination can be presented that is true to the analogy of faith (viz.--that faith is necessary to salvation), and still remains true to the text itself (viz.--the distinction created between “all men” / “those who believe” by the term “specially”)? I am convinced that there is none.
-J
S.D.G
Edited by: MonkeeSage at: 4/15/02 4:01:36 am
Re: I understand
I don’t accept Dr. Fausset as any authority on grammatical constructions, etymology, or lexicography-- Okay bro but i could bring you others that say the same thing, or just about and you would would discard them too... anyway i need a couple hours sleep have to get up in two freaking hours and the wife is gonna kill me for being dead on my feet as it is.... God bless ya Monkeeeeeeeeee
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 176
(4/15/02 6:02 am) Reply
Re: I understand
You could quote many commentaries, and I surely would disregard them if they could not maintain the analogy of faith and a fidelity to the text. I do not reject Dr. Fausset as an authority on grammatical constructions, etymology, or lexicography because of any doctrinal consideration, however, I reject him as an authority in those areas because they were not his field of expertise. Robertson, when he speaks about grammatical form, etymology, or lexicography, I recognize, Nicoll, Goodwin, Gulick, Alford, Conybeare, Howson, Wallace, Wuest, Gideon, Vaughn, Dana, Mantey, etc. etc. in those areas, and any other established experts in the respective fields.
I do, however, reject Dr. Fausset’s expositional comments regarding our passage as well, because of their theoretical nature and departure from the text in speaking of a potential salvation, as well as their destruction of the analogy of faith. I will accept any explaination that both preserves the analogy of faith (that none can be saved without faith) and the specific distinction that the text demands between the being a Savior in one way to “all men” and another to “those who believe,” and which preserving the analogy of faith requires.
I didn’t pop out of my mom with a Westminster Confession, I started out as an every-day, run-of-the-mill Arminian, of the Calvary Chapel flavor. I became a Calvinist after studying the Scriptures. It was Tophat that kept bringings me back to the Scriptures, and I kept kicking and screaming...the more I saw, though, the more I knew I was getting past the flakey pastry evangelical crust to the stuffing. I didn’t even read Calvin until I had already accepted the Biblical (i.e., Reformed) doctrine of election/predestination/depravity. I bought a copy of Calvin’s Commentary on Romans off e-bay for about $10, read it from chapter 7-11. After a long time studying the Reformed doctrines and the supposed problems that go along with it, the more I say with Luther, “here I stand,” and with the Apostle, “By the Grace of God I am what I am.” I’m not closed minded to other explainations, just to other explainations that I used to hold to until I watched them collapse under their own weight. :)
Re: I understand
MonkeeSage you write... You could quote many commentaries, and I surely would disregard them if they could not maintain the analogy of faith and a fidelity to the text.
(But that is exactly what they will say about the texts you use... this is why I choice to stand on the word of God... as was given to me, with pray and study... you seem to fault me at that... ? That I prefer this method... though I don't recall Jesus, Paul, Peter or any others quoting from anything else but scripture? It seems I am being held at fault for believing God got the word to me, the same word I might add that help me to see the truth... and lead others to read as well... is not truth... if one has to change this many verses... and explain simple face value verses... that most hold as truth in there meaning. So when asked what bible should I read... I should tell them... well no english one thats for sure... AND surely not the KJV. What it says for face value infact isn't the truth... )
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 181
(4/15/02 11:52 pm) Reply
Re: I understand
Bluster, blustster, and more bluster...poor Jehu being faulted for thinking God got the Word to him...boohoo...
No, poor Jehu being held accountable for rightly dividing the word and not acting like a Mormon or JW with it.
Re: I understand
Thats very Christian of you MonkeeSage... very Christ like... does your doctrine teach you to act as such? Second I note ya didn't answer the question? Third... I see the JW doctrine and your doctrine as very close... only dofference between you and them is they claim to be of the election you must be a JW
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 185
(4/16/02 5:30 am) Reply
Re: I understand
Are you implying that it is not Christ-like to "let my yes be yes and my no, be no"? After-all, calling bluster what it is, is doing just that. Yes, my doctrine teaches me to call things what they are without any ambiguity or ephemism.
Secondly, you didn't ask a question, or else I missed it; all I saw was a long bluster about how I am (suposedly) saying that God didn't get His Word to English speakers and how we can't give people KJVs (?!??), etc. and that without any documentation or warrant (and thus making it a bluster).
Third, how exactly is my doctrine like the JWs, be specific and give sources from people who represent my doctrine (historical Calvinists).
Fourthly, (my own point) you were being asked to submit to the analogy of faith (which you will find right in your KJV Isaiah chapter 28 and verse 10, and 13), and not to claim your opinion as the "face value" reading, as JW and LDS do. No one said your doctrine was anything similar to theirs.
God." 
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies