|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 24, 2006 18:38:15 GMT -5
Here's a Scripture that seems like it would be difficult for Calvinism to reconcile with limited atonement. "This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (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." -1 Timothy 4:9-10 NIV Now the Arminian would contend that this means salvation is provided for everyone, but it's benefits are only applied to those who believe. How does a Calvinist interpret this text in accordance with limited atonement? What does Paul mean when he says God is the Savior of all men?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 24, 2006 19:18:39 GMT -5
God is only the "Saviour" of those that believe. One cannot have a Saviour unless one is saved/born again. So with your interpretation, EVERYONE is saved because God is everyone's Saviour!
Reading the other night, John 12 -
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." v32
Was Christ lifted up from the earth? Yes. Will he draw/has he drawn ALL MEN unto him?
"Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." v39,40
They could not believe?? Sounds like a decree of God that would contradict the Arminian belief that God desires ALL men to be saved.
"for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." v47 If I set out with a plan and mission to buy a car, but returned with only a door, windscreen, a steering wheel and a few other parts, would I have failed or succeeded in my plan and mission? Failed! Has Christ 'failed' in his mission? By the Arminian interpretation, he has considering the "world" hasn't been saved nor isn't being saved.
This was just highlighted to me (i believe by the Spirit) in my readings the other evening. I have never heard them preached on nor in a book about election.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 24, 2006 19:44:56 GMT -5
Armen,
Paul explicitly says that God is the Savior of all men. You say God is only the "Savior" of those that believe. You clearly contradict Paul here. How do you justify your statement from this passage? You did not answer the question that was presented here: What does Paul mean when he says God is the Savior of all men? Why do you refuse to recognize that the Arminain interpretation does not equate to Universalism? If the benefits of the cross only apply to those who believe, then how do you get Universalism? Do you think everyone will believe? I don't know of any evangelical Arminians that are Universalists. You are not interacting with the arguments presented here for a universal provision with limited application. This is simply an attempt to be faithful to the text.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 24, 2006 20:01:58 GMT -5
I am indeed brother, not in a way of given an answer from a Calvinistic view, but showing that it doesn't make sense with the Arminian view. If you go out and preach that Christ is the Saviour of the world, then people will be like, "cool, if he's the Saviour of all men, then he must mean me" and they will believe that they are saved unconditionally, because Christ can't be your Saviour without being your Saviour (if you know what I mean). So to tell people that He is the Saviour of all men, you imply universalism.
But to answer, I believe Pastor John Samson gives a good interpretation:
"As we study the terms "salvation" and "Savior" we find many nuances - many different ways - God saves. The most important aspect of salvation is to be "saved" from the wrath of God (Romans 5:6-9; 1 Thess. 1:10), but salvation also includes the idea of rescue from enemy attack (Psalm 18:3); preservation (Matt. 8:25); physical healing (Matt. 9:22; James 5:15), etc. God "saved" not only Paul's life but everyone else on board ship with him in Acts 27:22, 31, 44. There are numerous ways that "salvation" takes place, but that's a complete Bible study all in itself.
When we study the word Savior (Greek: soter) in the LXX version (Greek translation of the Old Testament), we see the word used in a way that is far less grandiose than that which we generally think of the word. One example is Judge Othniel, who is called a Soter (Savior) or deliverer because he delivered the children of Israel from the hands of the king of Mesopotamia (Jud. 3:9). 2 Kings 13:5 talks of God giving Israel a "Savior" so that they were delivered from the hands of the Syrians. The judges of Israel were "saviors" as Nehemiah 9:27 states, "in the time of their suffering they cried out to you and you heard them from heaven, and according to your great mercies you gave them saviors who saved them from the hand of their enemies." (see also Psalm 36:6)
A great deal more could be said to substantiate this idea of a savior, but I think the above would make the point. God provides food (Psalm 104:27, 28), sunlight and rainfall (Matt. 5:45), as well as life and breath and all things (Acts 17:25), for "in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). God preserves, delivers and supplies the needs of all who live in this world, and it is in this sense that He extends grace to them, saving them from destruction every day they live.
God is also gracious in allowing many to hear the proclamation of the Gospel.
All of these mercies are refered to as "common grace." It is common only in the sense that every living person gets it. This grace should actually amaze us because God is under no obligation whatsoever to give it to anyone. It can never be demanded. God sustains the lives of His sworn enemies, often for many decades! However, as wonderful as it is, it is only a temporal grace because all unregenerate people eventually die and will face the judgment (Heb. 9:27).
I believe then that 1 Timothy 4:10 teaches that we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior (Soter - preserver, sustainer, deliverer) of all people (showing mercy to all, each and every day they live), especially of those who believe (who receive full salvation from His wrath and everlasting life)."
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 24, 2006 22:09:28 GMT -5
They could not believe?? Sounds like a decree of God that would contradict the Arminian belief that God desires ALL men to be saved. Actually, I believe you could look at "could not" this way as well: "what if you were given some narcotics, would you take them? NO WAY! You could not because its a sin... though you most definitely have that choice." But when one's heart is so hardened against GOD, they cannot choose righteously the same way. We can also look at what "hardened their hearts" means. Some might say GOD turns their hearts away from him causing them not to choose righteously. Others might say GOD simply solidifies the state they are already in (or direction they are going), such as a catalyst does, never changing their hearts but holding it in position for His purpose. And I agree with the later since it makes full sense Scripturally, characteristicly, and logically. Freewill was always given and yet He perhaps chooses to freeze their state in order to be glorified... as with the exodus.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 25, 2006 5:01:53 GMT -5
Brother, is that not just a round about way of saying God decreed that they should never be saved showing the doctrine of unconditional election?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 25, 2006 10:22:34 GMT -5
Armen,
As for all the teachings I've heard with a Calvinist viewpoint, I would say no. In my post above, the person's freewill was never changed or redirected, but solidified. I believe GOD leaves the direction of our freewill to us which is why its called justice. As scripture says, they were set in their ways, following the evil desires of the world. But I don't believe it says, GOD pre-selected those He would allow to believe and repent regardless of their will or choice.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Fuller on Mar 25, 2006 23:17:33 GMT -5
I thank everyone for bringing up this "difficult" verse, but it's a lot easier to explain than what was talked about here. Let me offer the following commentary by J. Ligon Duncan, it's a brilliantly short explanation of how this part of Scripture actually points to the doctrine of limited atonement:
What is Paul saying? He’s saying that God’s great and gracious salvation is received only by faith, only by those who believe. Now, there’s some debate over the precise meaning of especially here. Does Paul use this word that we translate especially to indicate that there is a general way in which God is the Savior of all humankind, and a special way in which He is the Savior of believers? Very imminent interpreters have taken that to be Paul’s meaning.
But I would like to suggest to you another understanding. Paul uses this word especially to mean that is.
Now you say, “Well, why did the translator translate it especially?” Because that Greek word can legitimately be translated especially, or it can legitimately be translated that is. Let me give you an example. I’m not just making this up. Turn to I Timothy 5:17, not but a few verses later. The same word is used: especially.
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in the preaching and teaching....”
It’s the same Greek word, and it could legitimately be translated “that is.”
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Fuller on Mar 25, 2006 23:40:15 GMT -5
Further study of the verse has brought me to the fact that many scholars do disagree with the meaning of the greek word "malista"... really to say it definitely means "that is or namely" isn't the best defense for the doctrine of limited atonement in the verse. Moreso, it brings us back to the word Arminians and Calvinists will disagree on until we get to gloryland: "all or in Greek pas". I offer the followiung resource:
In this verse, the general ransom theory holds that the statement that God is the “Savior of all men” indicates that he atoned for the entire human race, and that the phrase “especially of believers” shows that he saves those who believe to a greater degree than he saves the populace at large. The argument suggests that God “saved” every person ever by atoning for them, but that he “especially” saves believers because they accept his grace and receive eternal life.
Of course, the most obvious rebuttal to this is the fact that “saved” people don’t go to hell. It would be terribly misleading for Paul to call the condemned souls in hell “saved.” Moreover, if it is legitimate to use the word “saved” to refer to something other than the state in which one is redeemed from sin and bound for eternity with Christ, it casts a shadow over nearly every other passage in which “saved” is used. After all, if one can be both “saved” and condemned to hell at the same time, being “saved” is not terribly reassuring. In point of fact, this interprets the verse to teach that people who hate Christ, who never demonstrate faith, and who perish in hell are “saved” , it does not just infer that they “might have been saved,” but that they are “saved.”
It seems much more honest use of language to say that God is not the savior of every person ever because not every person ever is “saved.” Unbelief and belief do not represent two different degrees of salvation. Belief represents salvation, and unbelief represents damnation.
What then does it mean for God to be the “savior of all men”? Two solutions seem reasonable. First, Paul may again have been referring to “all mankind” as a race (without reference to individuals), or to “all types of men.” Both of these meanings are legitimate interpretations of the phrase pas anthropos used in 1 Timothy 4:10. He may also simply have meant “a multitude of men,” or he may have been speaking specifically of believers and believers alone. Each of these options is worth considering:
|
|
|
Post by Manna on Mar 26, 2006 0:05:28 GMT -5
Huh, !! excuse me.. may i say something from a simple and humble heart....Isn't 1 Tim 4:9-10 a creedal statement about sweet Jesus... Look at it this way, i backed up.. 1 Tim 1:15
The Apostle Paul is exhorted here, in this passage of Holy Scripture... Verse 15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the word to save sinners; of whom i am chief...So Christ Jesus came into this World to save not the righteous, but sinners...who claims that they have never been a sinner? Or that God is not the saver of all men, for when i read Psalms 36:6 Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgements are a great deep: O Lord, thou preservest man and beast. Basically the Psalmist David , is saying that the Wickness confronts God's love...What is God love that they confront?, It is Lord Christ Jesus ....
Just passing through... Blessed Regards..
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 27, 2006 17:18:27 GMT -5
Jeff, You posted this refutation of the unlimited atonement view of 1 Timothy 4:9-10, Of course, the most obvious rebuttal to this is the fact that “saved” people don’t go to hell. It would be terribly misleading for Paul to call the condemned souls in hell “saved.” Moreover, if it is legitimate to use the word “saved” to refer to something other than the state in which one is redeemed from sin and bound for eternity with Christ, it casts a shadow over nearly every other passage in which “saved” is used. After all, if one can be both “saved” and condemned to hell at the same time, being “saved” is not terribly reassuring. In point of fact, this interprets the verse to teach that people who hate Christ, who never demonstrate faith, and who perish in hell are “saved” , it does not just infer that they “might have been saved,” but that they are “saved.” This is arguing against a point that is not even being contended for. The unlimited atonement view does not consider all men "saved". The argument here presented draws a conclusion that we do not draw: If Jesus is Savior of all men, then all men are saved. I would agree with the refutation that this would put "saved" people in hell. This is clearly unacceptable. We see this passage as teaching the difference between Jesus as Savior objectively and subjectively. Only those who believe are actually saved. Let me try to use an illustration to shed light: A man is trapped two miles out in the ocean and is beginning to lose the necessary strength to continue to tread water. The Coast Guard sends a rescue helicopter to save the man. They lower a rope down to the man who rejects the rescue because he's doesn't like the Coast Guard. The man goes under and drowns before their very eyes. In this illustration it can be said that the Coast Guard was the man's savior (objectively), but because he refused the salvation he was not saved (subjectively). This is what the unlimited view holds. That salvation is provided (objectively) for every person, but only the believer will receive the benefits (subjectively) of the atonement. So to say that we have "saved" people in hell completely misses the point. This is why universalism is an illegitimate charge against the unlimited view. We do not believe that saying Jesus is the Savior of all men must all mean that all men are saved. That would omit the clear biblical teaching that repentant faith is a condition of salvation. I think the underlying issue here goes to our presuppostitions of monergism or evangelical synergism. Where you stand on that issue will likely determine how you interpret this passage. If you're reading an evangelical synergist's interpretation from a monergistic framework it won't make any sense. If you don't hold to monergism the text doesn't have to be twisted to say something other than what it obviously says.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 27, 2006 17:29:55 GMT -5
Armen,
I believe it can easily be seen that "Savior" here in reference to all men does not refer to temporal salvation. Look at the context of the Pastoral epistles where Savior is used and it will be abundantly clear that Paul is not talking about "common grace". Nothing in the context of the Pastoral epistles can give this interpretation. Nor does the context of 1 Tiimothy 4.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Apr 4, 2006 11:28:49 GMT -5
I believe it can easily be seen that "Savior" here in reference to all men does not refer to temporal salvation. Look at the context of the Pastoral epistles where Savior is used and it will be abundantly clear that Paul is not talking about "common grace". Nothing in the context of the Pastoral epistles can give this interpretation. Nor does the context of 1 Tiimothy 4. I don't know, I read the context and I don't see Paul introducing the thought of common grace here as a break in the flow. One scripture that comes to mind is Colossians 1:17: "in [Christ] all things hold together." (ESV) Christ keeps the world from utterly flying apart, even the lives of those who never accepted Christ nor never will. The universe should have exploded in everlasting judgement the day Satan sinned, yet we are all given a temporal salvation of some sort. (Yes I checked the context) ;D I've heard it said that in scripture "Savior" does not always mean "for eternal salvation," particularly in the OT. Sorry if I cannot immediately validate that claim, but memory seems to indicate that's true. John Piper had this to say about this verse: We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. (...) What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) -- is made possible because of the cross.
This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.
Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.
But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially."That's why I like Piper, I couldn't have said that any better :-) So I think it is very natural to read 1 Timothy 4:10 to say, "For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior <of temporal problems> all people, especially of those who believe <for the great eternal problem>." As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a difficult verse for me -- and I happen to agree with the five points ;D
|
|