Five Point or Four Point

[cygnusx1]

and just what is the aim of our prayers in 1 Tim 2 ?


are we commanded to pray that God save everybody ?

here it is .......

..........that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.1Tim 2:2


So far the arguement runs like this :

It is said that because we are commanded to pray for "all men" therefore God wills the salvation of the same ... "all men"

yet if it can be shown from God's word that God forbids prayer to some men , then the meaning of "all men " in 1 Timothy 2 will need to be correctly understood as there are many ways of understanding "all men" without it meaning every single man , women and child.


For the set pas, (Nominative singular masculine of which pantas is the Accusative masculine plural) we find the following meaning elements listed in Louw & Nida (Semantic Domain GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON: United Bible Societies 1st edit. 1988)

pas a. all
b. any
c. total
d. whole
e. every kind of

Now a) above will unparcel to reveal: A1: All without exception, and ...
A2 All without distinction

And e) above will unparcel to reveal: E1 some of all sorts, and
E2 all manner of

Now which of these meanings did the Holy Ghost intend us to take as being the correct one to fit 1 Tim. 2:4? What do we do? Shall we say, Oh, I like this one, I’ll make it this one? Or, I feel led to A1, I’m certain that’s what God intended, I feel the witness within me? The Arminians insist on A1. On what grounds?
But now, what about the context? And what about the whole analogia fidei, by which we are to be guided when interpreting any difficult text such as this? Well first, the whole scope and tenor of Scripture shout that the Arminian interpretation A1 will put the text in contradiction to the Divine decrees. Knowing this, the Arminians do their utmost to extract as much anti-Calvinist mileage out of this text as they possibly can.

But manifestly, meaning elements e), and E1, and E2 will fit beautifully, and eliminate any contradiction with the rest of Scripture. That is, that God "will have all manner of men to be saved". In an age like the 1st Cent. AD, long before the rise of egalitarian democracies, when society was heavily stratified socially, and racial prejudices inflamed, it would have been vitally important to draw attention to the fact that God’s salvation was not only for one racial group, (the Jews, for instance, and much of the New Testament addresses precisely that question) or for one class of Society. Not only peasants, and slaves, but even middle class professionals and even rulers were to be addressed with the Gospel ("every creature", was emphasized, Mark 16:15). It was important to emphasize that "some of all sorts" of people were to be saved, by the Divine decree. And in historical practice, that is precisely how it has worked out, not all men without exception, but some of all sorts.

Now, it remains to examine the immediate context to the verse concerned. Notice how the phrase "all men" is coupled not only to the phrase "to be saved", but also to the clause: "to come unto the knowledge of the truth". In fact, in the Greek the coupling is closer than in the English. So it is God’s will that "all men" come "unto the knowledge of the truth" as well as that they be saved. Manifestly, they cannot be saved, without first coming unto the knowledge of the truth. (Rom. 10:14). And equally manifest is the fact that down through all the Old Testament period, and through the New Testament period, it has not been the will of God that "all men without exception" should come "unto the knowledge of the truth", but it has manifestly and indubitably been His will that "all manner of men", or "all kinds of men" should so come, and be saved. Some indeed, as Saint John says, "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9 and cf. Rev. 11:9). Not all without exception.

Let the reader judge, what about all the billions of human beings absolutely excluded from the knowledge of the Gospel, and therefore salvation, for millennia? The millions of pre-Columbian America, the vast billions of China, and the East, and the manifold tribes of Africa ... all precluded from viewing the Gospel dispensation for most of the history of the world. Which interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:3-4 fits with reality.

But this is not all. Again looking at the immediate context of our verse we see in verse one preceding it the phrase "all men" used by the apostle again. The same Greek words are used as in verse 4 except for a change in the flexions for case endings. The apostle exhorts us to pray for "all men", an impossible task, if "all without exception is meant", for we are not allowed to pray for the dead, or for those who have committed the unpardonable sin. (I John 5:16). The Apostle makes it clear in verse two that by "all" in verse one he means "all kinds of" men, when he specifies that prayers should be made even for kings and all those in authority, that is, for those even of that exalted type of men who in most instances in those days were enemies that persecuted Christians, but from amongst whom God was pleased to save some.

We conclude therefore that the Holy Ghost wrote by the apostle that God willed "all kinds of men" to be saved. The interpretation is in beautiful harmony with the analogia fidei, the context and all the sound principles of exegesis, and the science of linguistics. A threefold cord is not quickly broken. (Eccl. 4:12).


http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=312

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Erin, I want to point out that while our theology does need to be based upon Scripture, I don't think it's wrong to eliminate reason from the equation, either. We believe in sola Scriptura, not solo Scriptura. We don't see the Trinity spelled out in three easy steps, either, but we see it plainly there by combining what we do see with reason. Even the great Reformer, Martin Luther, told the Diet of Worms "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason...my conscience is captive to the Word of God." RC Sproul said in Chosen By God (and I paraphrase!) that while it is true that God is higher than logic, at the same time, He is not less than logic, either, or else He could be destroyed by logic.

Now to the topic at hand...

John Owen describes three possible combinations of the atonement and sin. The atonement could possibly cover:

1. Some of the sins of all people.
2. All of the sins of some of the people.
3. All of the sins of all of the people.

Do you see any other possible combinations? (Hear me out before you answer that! )

I think we can eliminate #1 from our consideration. Any sins not covered by the atonement would be enough to doom us all to hell.

Proponents of limited, or particular, atonement agree with #2.

I think our question deals with two possible aspects of #3. Universalists would say the atonement covers all of the sins of all of the people...period. I think we would both agree that this view is wrong.

It seems to me that 4-point Calvinists would say that the atonement would cover all of the sins of all of the people...provided that each person comes to a saving faith in God, so the issue is belief in the individual. Is this how you understand it?

 

[Iosias]

In point of fact, the Synod of Dordt defines Limited Atonement. It actually does assert Christ's Atonement is more than sufficient for all. Dordt defined the Five Points of Calvinism. So ... Limited Atonement doesn't assert Christ's Atonement is insufficient for all:

Point 2, Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death​

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.​

So you see, Reformed theology defines Limited Atonement with infinite sufficiency.

You are correct that Dord affirmed sufficiency the question is whether it should have done

 

[heymikey80]

You are correct that Dord affirmed sufficiency the question is whether it should have done

Yes; if we're talking about Reformed theology, the theology has accepted it for nearly 500 years even in conservative circles (OPC, PCA, e.g.). It's considered unwise to project from this position in some denominations.

I'm aware the PRCA wouldn't agree with ... well, what's often said in consequence of this assertion of Dordt. I don't think it has trouble embracing the infinite value of Christ's Atonement either, does it? Does it deal specifically with the application of the Atonement? Or what does it consider to be the worth of Christ's Crucifixion?

 

[Iosias]

I'm aware the PRCA wouldn't agree with ... well, what's often said in consequence of this assertion of Dordt. I don't think it has trouble embracing the infinite value of Christ's Atonement either, does it? Does it deal specifically with the application of the Atonement? Or what does it consider to be the worth of Christ's Crucifixion?

I have Homer C. Hoeksema's commentary Voice of our Fatherswhich goes through Dord. The PRCA seem to accept it.

 

[heymikey80]

I have Homer C. Hoeksema's commentary Voice of our Fatherswhich goes through Dord. The PRCA seem to accept it.

Yes, I think that the PRCA accepts the infinite value of the Atonement, just a more isolative application of the Atonement than other views. (Grant forebearance, please, this opinion is from an outsider to the PRCA.)

 

[erin74]

So if we are commanded not to pray for apostates then praying for every single person to be saved is out of the question .

Just a thought - can we know if someone is apostate. I would have thought that was between them and God?

Not sure if anything hangs off this thought, but am still trying to think through things thoroughly.

Don't worry - if ever I get this I will have it for life. I just don't rush into things!

 

[erin74]

Erin, I want to point out that while our theology does need to be based upon Scripture, I don't think it's wrong to eliminate reason from the equation, either. We believe in sola Scriptura, not solo Scriptura. We don't see the Trinity spelled out in three easy steps, either, but we see it plainly there by combining what we do see with reason. Even the great Reformer, Martin Luther, told the Diet of Worms "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason...my conscience is captive to the Word of God." RC Sproul said in Chosen By God (and I paraphrase!) that while it is true that God is higher than logic, at the same time, He is not less than logic, either, or else He could be destroyed by logic.

Thanks for this. I am a bit hyper sensitive on the reason thing at the moment - my denomination has had some fairly significant issues that relate to reason ultimately.

Now to the topic at hand...

John Owen describes three possible combinations of the atonement and sin. The atonement could possibly cover:

1. Some of the sins of all people.
2. All of the sins of some of the people.
3. All of the sins of all of the people.

Do you see any other possible combinations? (Hear me out before you answer that! )

I think we can eliminate #1 from our consideration. Any sins not covered by the atonement would be enough to doom us all to hell.

Proponents of limited, or particular, atonement agree with #2.

I think our question deals with two possible aspects of #3. Universalists would say the atonement covers all of the sins of all of the people...period. I think we would both agree that this view is wrong.

It seems to me that 4-point Calvinists would say that the atonement would cover all of the sins of all of the people...provided that each person comes to a saving faith in God, so the issue is belief in the individual. Is this how you understand it?

I guess my issue is the "could".

It could be C, but is B if you know what I mean.

So not so much that it would cover all the sins of all the people provided each comes to a saving faith - this is true, but needs to be recognised that the faith comes from God. So it would be C only if God chose it to be C, which I do not believe he does in that there is biblical evidence to suggest otherwise.

I don't want to eliminate the 'could' factor - does L require me to do so, because an earlier post suggested it did not....

I am so confused at the moment.

I think a big part of my issue is that I just don't get what L is?? I think I am beginning to get what it isn't, but am not sure I get what it is?

What is the distinction it is trying to make. What hangs off it?

 

[kimlva]

I may be way off here, because you people are just so smart that you lose me sometimes. But I just wanted to share why I believe the L is important.
If you already believe in election, then obviously you believe God planned the whole thing. Why would God, who loves His Son with an incomprehensible love, unnecessarily pour out wrath upon Him on the cross when He knew He was going to be pouring out His wrath on those people later in hell? If Christ's death was indeed in our place, then it just doesn't make any sense any other way. To say that God is requiring double payment for sins would seem to make Him unjust.

 

[erin74]

Now that is an interesting point I hadn't thought through.

I will be interested to hear what the others say.

 

[McWilliams]

Just a thought - can we know if someone is apostate. I would have thought that was between them and God?

Not sure if anything hangs off this thought, but am still trying to think through things thoroughly.

Don't worry - if ever I get this I will have it for life. I just don't rush into things!

This is demonstrated/manifested by 1 John 2:19:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not of us.

 

[erin74]

I may be way off here, because you people are just so smart that you lose me sometimes. But I just wanted to share why I believe the L is important.
If you already believe in election, then obviously you believe God planned the whole thing. Why would God, who loves His Son with an incomprehensible love, unnecessarily pour out wrath upon Him on the cross when He knew He was going to be pouring out His wrath on those people later in hell? If Christ's death was indeed in our place, then it just doesn't make any sense any other way. To say that God is requiring double payment for sins would seem to make Him unjust.

I've been thinking about this today - not as much as I need to, but a bit.

I think this is the thing that I have been looking for. I've been wondering what hangs off this doctrine - what the implications were.

Do others hold this as well? Are there flaws to this that I haven't seen. It seems reasonable to me.

 

[Iosias]

That is a standard Reformed position erin74 - Read my signature

 

[erin74]

I went and had a look - I have signatures disabled.
Please feel free to call me erin.

So - is that what L is all about? Cause that's what I've been trying to work out for a year. I just couldn't get the point of L. If this is the point, I totally get it. Finally!

Although - I would love to hear what Steve has to say on it - even if pm if he'd prefer not to here.

 

[Iosias]

I went and had a look - I have signatures disabled.
Please feel free to call me erin.

So - is that what L is all about? Cause that's what I've been trying to work out for a year. I just couldn't get the point of L. If this is the point, I totally get it. Finally!

Yes, Toplady captures the very essence of the doctrine:

“Complete atonement Thou hast made, And to the utmost farthing paid Whate'er Thy people owed: Nor can His wrath on me take place, If sheltered in Thy righteousness, And sprinkled with Thy blood. If Thou hast my discharge procured, And freely in my room endured The whole of wrath divine: Payment God cannot twice demand, First at my wounded Surety's hand, And then again at mine.” – Augustus Toplady

I see your copy of Pink's Sovereignty of God has arrived. If you have the Baker edition:

Pink deals with this issue on pages 59-70.​

 

[erin74]

I can't remember what edition it is - but will check. Thanks for this!

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I've been thinking about this today - not as much as I need to, but a bit.

I think this is the thing that I have been looking for. I've been wondering what hangs off this doctrine - what the implications were.

Do others hold this as well? Are there flaws to this that I haven't seen. It seems reasonable to me.

The double-jeapordy angle was where I was heading with my questions. (So much for Socrates, huh? )

 

[erin74]

Can you show me how you intended to get there - I'd love to see it from another approach anyway.

 

[drstevej]

Although - I would love to hear what Steve has to say on it - even if pm if he'd prefer not to here.

First, I understand the logic of the double jeopardy argument. Yet it does not remove passages like 2 Peter 2:1, 1 Timothy 4:10 and I do not want logic to trump exegesis.

Second, to use the title of a excellent John Murray book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, the merits of Christ's death are not conveyed until they are applied. An elect person is a sinner and lost until he is regernerated by the Holy Spirit. He is in the same spiritual estate as the non-elect prior to the new birth.

On Passover eve in Egypt a Hebrew home where a passover lamb was slain but the blood was not applied to the doorpost was a house still under judgment and the first born of that house would be dead the next day.

The lamb must be slain and the blood applied for salvation of the first born.

I believe the Scriptures teach He was slain for all yet the blood is applied ONLY to the elect. And until and unless the blood is applied through regeneration, there is no forgiveness or remission of sins.

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 (agorazo) them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction

 

[Iosias]

First, I understand the logic of the double jeopardy argument. Yet it does not remove passages like 2 Peter 2:1.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/2_Peter/2_Peter_2.htm

1 Timothy 4:10 and I do not want logic to trump exegesis.

Gill:

Who is the Saviour of all men; 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; for that he is the Saviour of all men, with a spiritual and everlasting salvation, is not true in fact.

Personally I disagree with Gill here for I would understand this verse as meaning there is only one Saviour of men that is Christ Jesus.