Please explain your strange "full stop" comments.
Fair description of how so many of the Calvinists have posted here. But one gets used to it.
Which may all be well and good, but you're overlooking the fact that Paul is qualifying Christ's saviorhood of the unsaved to be inferior to the saviorhood of the saved. Christ cannot be the savior of all men because of his work on the cross, and not be the special savior of some men because of his work on the cross. That would work if there were a full stop three words earlier. There isn't.
OK. Justification, salvation, forgiveness of sins, has eternal life, regeneration/born again/new birth/new creation, imputed righteousness.
That's 6. Or a half dozen, depending on how one counts.
I don't see either inferiorily or superiority in 1 Tim 4:10. I see effectiveness. For the unsaved, who won't receive His gift, He doesn't save them, though He clearly purchased the gift of eternal life for them. For the saved, He does save them because they received the gift of eternal life.
The word "malista" doesn't mean "special".
Please prove your grossly untrue claim. Specifically, with post #s and actual comments.
Yes, it will do. He is the Savior of everyone because He paid the penalty for everyone and purchased actual eternal life for everyone. That alone qualifies Him to be called Savior of the world. Jn 1:29, 4:42.
I haven't at all. But I acknowledge your opinion. I think the problem is your refusal to accept that Christ died for everyone.
By the fact that He actually gave them the free gift of eternal life. He did save them. So, most of all, He is the Savior of those who believe in Him.
There is no such thing as "other forms of lesser saviorhood". You're still thinking in false terms of "superior vs inferior". With that improper context, I don't expect that my view can be understood properly.
Oh, I didn't know that words can mean something totally outside of what the lexicon says they mean. Is that how one defends their own theology, by making up meanings that can't be found in a lexicon? Sweet.
So, where do meanings come from?
But what did he do that qualifies him to be savior especially of the believer?
In which case you admit that being the savior implies that people are saved.
That directly contradicts "especially of belivers." You have Christ being the savior of the whole world, "equally" with believers.
Paul's terms, not mine.
Since you don't have any actual training in foreign language, I'd suggest more humility when you debate with a professional how it is professionals interact with their tools. You misunderstand what a lexicon is.
He saved them.
No I don't. He purchased the gift of eternal life for everyone, but only those who receive the gift through faith are saved. This is not difficult at all.
So, someone makes up a word, and starts using that word that no one else knows about, and just because the maker upper person starts using that word others begin to know what that word means? And this is from a professional??
Good. Then we're agreed. That's Calvinism by the way.
Unfortunately all linguistic theory is built on the counter proposition, that words have no objective or absolute meaning, but acquire meaning only based on an unspoken contract between speakers regarding how the word will be used.
A definition is a delineation of use.
