Norman Giesler and what he says about Calvinism

[bleitzel]

Ah. So God's preparation for destruction is His mercy. Hm. That contradicts Paul, too. It's quite clear Paul is pointing to two purposes: one for dishonor, one for honor. Tough to put those two identifications together. Then in the next verse he identifies them as vessels of wrath, and vessels of mercy.

Paul is giving a clear message that the Gentiles have been included, a message that the Jews do not like and are incredulous at, to be sure. In Romans 9 Paul uses several jabs to incite his Jewish brethren to remember their teaching, and then he turns that historical teaching on its head to prove his point. East is West, up is down. The Jews solidly object at this but Paul points out that they used to be fine with this thinking when it was in their favor.

Many teachers believe that in vs.22 et. al. when Paul is talking about some prepared for wrath and some for mercy that he is clearly defining two separate elect groups. But such is not the case. Paul is merely suggesting the possiblilty as a thinly veiled threat, again in line with customary Jewish thinking at the time but with a reversal in roles.

And one way that we can easily see that is the "What if" statements in 22 and 23 indicating a hypothetical possibility. Paul is not teaching this, in fact Paul does not believe that it is true but he has gone very far in this section of his letter, provoking his readers, and he is no doubt making one last point before he moves on - "What then shall we say?...in vs. 30.

No, he's not limited to speaking to Jews ... in a church ... in Rome .... He's talking about the Jewish mistake, sure. He's not addressing Jews who thought God only showed mercy to them. He's answering the question, "Who resists His will?"

Of course he's addressing the Jews who thought God only showed mercy on them, that's the only kind of Jews there were at that time! They're also the ones he talking about in Hebrews, and Galatians, and Acts.

He's speaking at a time in history and to an audience that was the culmination of hundreds and hundreds of years of build up. Starting with Jesus and the Samaritan girl at the well, and then in Acts and most of Paul's letters there is a striking, robust, pervasive theme: that the Gentiles have now been included in the kingdom of God.

It's so striking and such a reversal of centuries of teaching that Paul even calls it "the mystery" over and over again. It's really worth noting.

 

[heymikey80]

Paul is giving a clear message that the Gentiles have been included, a message that the Jews do not like and are incredulous at, to be sure. In Romans 9 Paul uses several jabs to incite his Jewish brethren to remember their teaching, and then he turns that historical teaching on its head to prove his point. East is West, up is down. The Jews solidly object at this but Paul points out that they used to be fine with this thinking when it was in their favor.

Paul's talking to the Roman church. Paul's telling them his sorrow over their mistaken push for righteousness through a law of justice.

Many teachers believe that in vs.22 et. al. when Paul is talking about some prepared for wrath and some for mercy that he is clearly defining two separate elect groups. But such is not the case. Paul is merely suggesting the possiblilty as a thinly veiled threat, again in line with customary Jewish thinking at the time but with a reversal in roles.

then it ends up only being a thinly veiled threat to include Gentiles, because Paul's "what if" statement extends through "even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles" Rom 9:24.

It's either factual, or it's a bankrupted argument. The argument implodes on itself as a threat "this might happen" the moment Paul injects a negative like this. That's no threat -- that's a proposition just crying out for good Jewish boys to reject out of hand, that No this isn't how it works.

Paul isn't doing this. Instead he is delivering a very bitter pill in the most careful way he can -- suggesting that a hard thing is occurring, and that everyone needs to be aboard. Because its hardness cuts all ways: to Gentiles, to Jewish people, to Apostles, everyone.

And it's barbed for Gentiles as well as Jewish people, as Romans 11 describes. But yeah, it's how the whole thing works.

Of course he's addressing the Jews who thought God only showed mercy on them, that's the only kind of Jews there were at that time! They're also the ones he talking about in Hebrews, and Galatians, and Acts.

I've already noted, he's not. He's not addressing them at all. No second person allusion is directed at the Jewish people.

He's talking to the church at Rome.

He's speaking at a time in history and to an audience that was the culmination of hundreds and hundreds of years of build up. Starting with Jesus and the Samaritan girl at the well, and then in Acts and most of Paul's letters there is a striking, robust, pervasive theme: that the Gentiles have now been included in the kingdom of God.

Gen 22:18 is clear, as well as numerous thoughts about how this could occur among commentators in the intertestamental period. It's remarkable in that it actually happened, given the condition of God's people at the time. It's unremarkable in that it didn't happen the way commentators guessed at it -- through arbitration, compromise, human discussion.

It's so striking and such a reversal of centuries of teaching that Paul even calls it "the mystery" over and over again. It's really worth noting.

It's not a reversal of Abraham -- it's a confirmation of Abraham.

 

[oworm]

. That is the problem with Geisler and others like him - they try to define Calvinism before trying to refute it. In essesnce all they are doing is refuting their own definition of Calvinism - not what it is in reality.

Yes................ The typical straw man tactic!

 

[Shulamite]

Yes................ The typical straw man tactic!

Love your signature comment: "If my God is not Sovreign in all things, you'll have to find me another God." Amen.

When Moses asked to "see" God's glory and He passed by Moses, one of the things He wanted Moses to see UP FRONT was His Sovreignty in 100% of everything. God is either 100% Sovreign or He is not. His Sovreignty is His glory. "He will not share His glory (Sovreingty) with another"

 

[bling]

Love your signature comment: "If my God is not Sovreign in all things, you'll have to find me another God." Amen.

When Moses asked to "see" God's glory and He passed by Moses, one of the things He wanted Moses to see UP FRONT was His Sovreignty in 100% of everything. God is either 100% Sovreign or He is not. His Sovreignty is His glory. "He will not share His glory (Sovreingty) with another"

Is God 100% Love with Godly Love being defined by Christ’s words and deeds?
Is Godly Love self seeking?
If Godly Love is not self seeking and God is the ultimate Lover than He is self less (always doing for the sake of others and not His own sake). This is what I always see Him doing, but under your theology, for who’s sake is God sending people to hell?

 

[heymikey80]

Is God 100% Love with Godly Love being defined by Christ’s words and deeds?
Is Godly Love self seeking?
If Godly Love is not self seeking and God is the ultimate Lover than He is self less (always doing for the sake of others and not His own sake). This is what I always see Him doing, but under your theology, for who’s sake is God sending people to hell?

The love of the kind God has requires a "should". To seek the benefit of someone is not the same as seeking their ease or seeking to be nice to them. A "should" has a contrary -- "should not". The love of God implies a "should not" as well, which has clear implications for punishment.

Seeking the "best" is not forcing the "best". It is simply functioning in various capacities as one is rightfully occupying, and benefiting as one decides one wants to.

God is good. Justice is served on those who willfully reject His love -- they get the result of what they ask for.

 

[Shulamite]

Is God 100% Love with Godly Love being defined by Christ’s words and deeds?
Is Godly Love self seeking?
If Godly Love is not self seeking and God is the ultimate Lover than He is self less (always doing for the sake of others and not His own sake). This is what I always see Him doing, but under your theology, for who’s sake is God sending people to hell?

Isaiah 45:7..."

New International Version (©1984)
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. New Living Translation (©2007)
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things. English Standard Version (©2001)
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

He is showing Himself Sovreign, not unloving or selfish. Yes, God is love, I would never argue that, but He is also Sovreign and Just. If sin exists, which it does, it must be justly dealt with.

 

[His]

Is God 100% Love with Godly Love being defined by Christ’s words and deeds?
Is Godly Love self seeking?
If Godly Love is not self seeking and God is the ultimate Lover than He is self less (always doing for the sake of others and not His own sake). This is what I always see Him doing, but under your theology, for who’s sake is God sending people to hell?

I don't think that Gods Love is defined by his actions or words. Scripture says that God is love (1 John 4:8) God does not merely love, He IS Love. He is not defined by love. Love is defined by Him. To say that God does for the sake of others and not for his own sake is to reduce love to an anthropocentric view and reduce God to a creature which reacts to the object of its desire. God Love's for his sake because it brings glory to Him. He IS self seeking because he only seeks what is perfectly in line with his character and will. His love is not influenced by its object. he loves because he loves. The cause of his love is within His own being and not subject to external influence.

When we speak of self seeking it conjures up thoughts of selfishness but it is possible to be self seeking and not selfish in the sinful sense. God is entirely self seeking in that he seeks only that which brings glory to himself. It is difficult for us as sinful fallen human beings to grasp this concept because we are more sinful than we think.

 

[bling]

The love of the kind God has requires a "should". To seek the benefit of someone is not the same as seeking their ease or seeking to be nice to them. A "should" has a contrary -- "should not". The love of God implies a "should not" as well, which has clear implications for punishment.

Seeking the "best" is not forcing the "best". It is simply functioning in various capacities as one is rightfully occupying, and benefiting as one decides one wants to.

God is good. Justice is served on those who willfully reject His love -- they get the result of what they ask for.

I did not mention “Should” or “should not”?
I am not implying God “should” or “should not” do anything. I find God totally consistent and Christ being totally consistent with God in human form. I see God being totally selfless (Godly Love) and always doing stuff for the sake of others.
I agree that God does not “force” what is best on free will agents, since it is not “Loving” to force individuals do what you want against the free will agent’s will.
I do not understand: “The love of God implies a "should not" as well, which has clear implications for punishment.” ?


You did not answer my questions?

 

[bling]

I don't think that Gods Love is defined by his actions or words. Scripture says that God is love (1 John 4:8) God does not merely love, He IS Love. He is not defined by love. Love is defined by Him. To say that God does for the sake of others and not for his own sake is to reduce love to an anthropocentric view and reduce God to a creature which reacts to the object of its desire. God Love's for his sake because it brings glory to Him. He IS self seeking because he only seeks what is perfectly in line with his character and will. His love is not influenced by its object. he loves because he loves. The cause of his love is within His own being and not subject to external influence.

When we speak of self seeking it conjures up thoughts of selfishness but it is possible to be self seeking and not selfish in the sinful sense. God is entirely self seeking in that he seeks only that which brings glory to himself. It is difficult for us as sinful fallen human beings to grasp this concept because we are more sinful than we think.

[
You are leaving “agape” ambiguous if you say “Love=God” and that is all we know about Love

If God and Love are the same; then would knowing something of the definition of Love also help define God?

Books have been written on “agape”, but the Bible does the best job.

Why can we not best define Godly type Love (agape) by Christ’s words and deeds and you can also use 1 Cor.13 and 1 John 4

If you do not define agape then it is meaningless to say: “God is Love”. Was John trying to help us understand God or Love or both with this statement?

What do you see Christ doing for His own sake and not for the sake of others

Does Christ not help describe God in a human form?

The God, I worship, is totally selfless and the One the Bible describes as Love. He is totally not self seeking which is also defined as being Godly type Love. The God, I worship, is totally consistent with: Love, justice, scripture, Christ, the world around us and everything that has and will happen.

Does your theology require you to “make” a god that is self seeking?

 

[bling]

Isaiah 45:7..."

New International Version (©1984)
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. New Living Translation (©2007)
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things. English Standard Version (©2001)
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

He is showing Himself Sovreign, not unloving or selfish. Yes, God is love, I would never argue that, but He is also Sovreign and Just. If sin exists, which it does, it must be justly dealt with.

I have no problem with a Loving God allow and/or producing tragedies. I have no problem with a Loving God being sovereign and Just.
It is truly unfortunate, God and I both do not like or “desire” tragedies (John 9: 1-7 the tragic blind man), but these are needed opportunities for me. God quenches His own desire to have us all in a Garden of Eden type situation to provide the best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.
These are for my sake and not His sake.

 

[His]

The God, I worship, is totally selfless and the One the Bible describes as Love. He is totally not self seeking which is also defined as being Godly type Love. The God, I worship, is totally consistent with: Love, justice, scripture, Christ, the world around us and everything that has and will happen. [/COLOR]

Whenever people make the statement that I have highlighted above (The God I worship) there is usually an implication that I am worshiping a God other than the God of scripture. I am hoping that the author means no such implication?

Does your theology require you to “make” a god that is self seeking?

Again there is an implication that I am somehow engaging in idolatry by making a God for myself. Again I trust that the author means no such implication?

My theology is informed by biblical truth. The perspicuity of Scripture in its entirety requires me to come to my theological conclusions.

I, I am he who blots out your transgressions ffor my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (Isaiah 43:25)

For your name's sake, O Lord, pardon my guilt, for it is great. (Psalm 25:11)

Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us, and atone for our sins, for your name's sake! (Psalm 79:9)

Though our iniquities testify against us, act, O Lord, for your name's sake; for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against you. (Jeremiah 14:7)

We acknowledge our wickedness, O Lord, and the iniquity of our fathers, for we have sinned against you. Do not spurn us, for your name's sake; do not dishonor your glorious throne. (Jeremiah 14:20-21)

God put [Christ] forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26)

Your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake. (1 John 2:12)

Gods demonstrations of Love bring glory to Him primarily. We as the recipients of that Love should bring to glorify him.

I think it may be a semantic issue that we are at odds with in our understanding of Gods self glorification. Human glorification is sinful but Gods glory in himself is perfect.

If the statement that God is totally selfless is true then that would be a denial of everything that God is and does and it would also be a denial of the witness of scripture and what he says about himself there. See quotes above

Again I will say. Our human understanding of selflessness has sinful connotations by virtue of our fallen nature. God calls us to selflessness because we need that, by virtue of the sinful tendency to human self glorification and all that goes along with such a heinous disposition. God on the other hand is perfectly satisfied in himself and does all things for his own gratification.

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory. (John 17:24)

God loves us not in a way that makes us supreme, but makes himself supreme. Heaven will not be a hall of mirrors but an increasing vision of infinite greatness. Getting to heaven and finding that we are supreme would be the ultimate let down.

The greatest love makes sure that God does everything in such a way as to uphold and magnify his own supremacy so that when we get there we have something to increase our joy forever—God’s glory.

It wasn't a selfless act when God gave over His son. It was a self giving act. He was not being self-less He was being self giving. He was doing something that is totally in keeping with his nature and character as the one who gives himself to sinners.

 

[His]

It is truly unfortunate, God and I both do not like or “desire” tragedies (John 9: 1-7 the tragic blind man), but these are needed opportunities for me. God quenches His own desire to have us all in a Garden of Eden type situation to provide the best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

How can God quench his own desire?This makes Gods will contrary to his desire. The suppression of desire denotes a conflict of the will. Does God suffer from the inner conflict of desires that battle against his will?

These are for my sake and not His sake.

The text you quoted actually demonstrates the view that you are opposing. If God did not desire that the man was born blind why does Jesus plainly state that the man was born blind so that Gods work might be demonstrated in him.

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him

 

[heymikey80]

I did not mention “Should” or “should not”?
I am not implying God “should” or “should not” do anything.

God's requiring a "should" of us is not the same as implying God should or should not do anything.

I find God totally consistent and Christ being totally consistent with God in human form. I see God being totally selfless (Godly Love) and always doing stuff for the sake of others.

I'm not sure what went with that discussion. I've been away. The consistency of other attributes dictates that consistency include all attributes in some way. We may even think that makes one attribute inconsistent; it isn't the case.

I agree that God does not “force” what is best on free will agents, since it is not “Loving” to force individuals do what you want against the free will agent’s will.

God's designed people to want what they do.

I do not understand: “The love of God implies a "should not" as well, which has clear implications for punishment.” ?

"Should not" is not the same as "does not". The correction of error to a "should" is termed "punishment". It is not a correction or improvement of the person. It's an offense that needs to be rectified.

You did not answer my questions?

Actually, I meant to by pointing out, God's love is not what common English usage communicates by "love". English "love" is generally kindness, protection, and familial love. None of these is particularly the central point of the Greek "agapae".

So the questions are equivocal. What do you wish to ask?

 

[Shulamite]

How can God quench his own desire?This makes Gods will contrary to his desire. The suppression of desire denotes a conflict of the will. Does God suffer from the inner conflict of desires that battle against his will?




The text you quoted actually demonstrates the view that you are opposing. If God did not desire that the man was born blind why does Jesus plainly state that the man was born blind so that Gods work might be demonstrated in him.

Absolutely and amen. Just as the Lord makes men blind or makes them see, so it is spiritually. He does this to display His glory and Sovreignty.
As He told Moses in Exodus 4:11..."The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?"

The Lord's desires are not in conflict with His will, ever. Job 23:13..""But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases."

All things were made by Him and for Him... Colossians 1:16..."For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."

So that God may express the fullness of His attributes, all things were made FOR Him, so that he may be seen and His atttributes expressed., i.e, His wrath, His justice, His mercy, His longsuffering, His love, etc., must be expressed on and through "vessels" which He prepared beforehand (romans 9)

All is for Him and His glory.

 

[anthony55]

shula:

The Lord's desires are not in conflict with His will,

Exactly. They are the same thing to God. 1 tim 2:


3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The word here in the greek for will is:

thelō :

to will, have in mind, intend

a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love

"to will, to wish," implying volition and purpose, frequently a determination !

Those He wishes or desires to be saved and come into the Knowledge of the Truth has He resolved, determined, and purposed to do it.

The word all as in all men in the verse, means all classes and ranks of men, that is jew and gentile, rich and poor, and ect.

 

[bleitzel]

Paul's talking to the Roman church. Paul's telling them his sorrow over their mistaken push for righteousness through a law of justice.

He is talking to the church of Rome, you're right, but the fact remains that he is very much addressing the Jewish conundrum. 2:17 is the start of several chapters of Paul dealing with this idea that the Gentiles have nbow been let in. In truth he even starts to bring it up in 2:9. To read this letter as if Paul is not thoroughly and primarily addressing the mystery of how the Gentiles could be let into the kingdom of God at this late date (from a Jewish perspective) is to completely misunderstand Paul. You can't get around it.

then it ends up only being a thinly veiled threat to include Gentiles, because Paul's "what if" statement extends through "even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles" Rom 9:24.

Paul's threat in 9:22-23 is absolutely a hypothetical threat. Your point about the Gentiles being included negating this as the correct understanding of the passage is off the mark. The quote you outlined above in blue is where Paul alludes to the fact that the Gentiles are among the ones whom God has destined for glory! In almost every chapter Paul is talking about the Gentiles being let in.

Paul isn't doing this. Instead he is delivering a very bitter pill in the most careful way he can -- suggesting that a hard thing is occurring, and that everyone needs to be aboard. Because its hardness cuts all ways: to Gentiles, to Jewish people, to Apostles, everyone.

Well, it is a bitter pill, but it is that God did not predestine some to eternal life and some to eternal death as the Jews then believed and the Calvinists believe today.

I've already noted, he's not. He's not addressing them at all. No second person allusion is directed at the Jewish people.

He's talking to the church at Rome.

Second person allusion: "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew..." Rom 2:17a

 

[anthony55]

blei:

but the fact remains that he is very much addressing the Jewish conundrum

No He is not, He is addressing both jew and greek or gentile. rom 1:

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

It tells you in the introduction of the letter specifically who Paul was writing this letter to:

rom 1:


5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

He is specifically writing to the called of Jesus Christ see rom 9:

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

secondly, he is addressing all that be in rome ! Which would be both jew and gentile believers, whose faith he had heard of vs 8

8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Thirdly, he was writing to the beloved of God ! Which are both elect, out of both jews and gentiles.

Fourthly. He is addressing all who are in Rome called to be saints ! God did not only call jews to be saints, see His call of the gentiles too in acts 10.

Fifthly, Paul was specifically chosen by God to be a teacher to the gentiles 2 tim 1:

11Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

His epistles are written for that purpose, to include the book of romans.

Much of the history of the jews are quite relevant to the gentile elect, because their Father spiritually, was a jew, Abraham, they too, are the seed of Abraham.

So I find your statement not being in accord with scriptural historical biblical evidence, but conjecture.

 

[heymikey80]

He is talking to the church of Rome, you're right, but the fact remains that he is very much addressing the Jewish conundrum.

That's not Paul's central theme. In point of fact Paul is addressing how to comprehend what's happening to Jewish people in his time, in God's timing. In Ephesians 2 Paul describes it as a "2-pronged" evangelistic ministry to bring the two together. So yes, Paul has two prongs to his ministry.

The Jewish people aren't pagans. The Gentile nations are. The message is very different between the two.

But in Romans you're saying it yourself, Paul's descriptions are mixed. The reason is, he's talking out both prongs of his evangelistic ministry. He's not ignoring Gentiles. He's not ignoring Jews. They're both present in the nations. They're both subjects of his ministry. He wants to bring the two together, both abandoning their respective errors, both arriving at the Way of Christ.

And the problem at Romans 9 is that Paul speaks about the Jewish people in the third person. So he's not talking to them, he's talking about them to someone else.

Who's that? The Gentiles.

Paul's threat in 9:22-23 is absolutely a hypothetical threat. Your point about the Gentiles being included negating this as the correct understanding of the passage is off the mark. The quote you outlined above in blue is where Paul alludes to the fact that the Gentiles are among the ones whom God has destined for glory! In almost every chapter Paul is talking about the Gentiles being let in.

But if the hypothesis is that there are groups set apart for destruction and glory, vaulting to actuality at :24 (in the same sentence no less) would be a horrible way to show it.

Well, it is a bitter pill, but it is that God did not predestine some to eternal life and some to eternal death as the Jews then believed and the Calvinists believe today.

Paul is either sidestepping a question he brought up himself -- or he's answering it.

The bitter pill is that Paul uses actuality again and again to describe a predestination that is not a result of the way we want, nor the way we act -- not these, but a cause of the way we want, and the way we act. Look at Pharaoh. Look at Isaac. Look at the Gentiles. Look at the quotes Paul uses from the Old Testament to support his view here.

And this is indeed entirely different from Israel's thought that progeny or practice of good works made them the chosen people. Paul focuses again & again on the result of the promise. Romans 9 thrusts this choice of God's into the spotlight, including 9:19-24.

Second person allusion: "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew..." Rom 2:17a

Third person:

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. 6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. Romans 9:3-7
​

Paul isn't addressing the Jewish people. He's talking to someone else.

 

[Benefactor]

shula:



Exactly. They are the same thing to God. 1 tim 2:


3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The word here in the greek for will is:

thelō :

to will, have in mind, intend

a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love

"to will, to wish," implying volition and purpose, frequently a determination !

Those He wishes or desires to be saved and come into the Knowledge of the Truth has He resolved, determined, and purposed to do it.

The word all as in all men in the verse, means all classes and ranks of men, that is jew and gentile, rich and poor, and ect.

Using this definition of "ALL': What person on the face of the earth would not fall into either (1) a Jew or a Gentile; (2) a rich person or a poor person; (3) a class or a rank? Who in all of time and space falls outside these categories from Genesis to the last person to be born on this earth?

What else is there for all are either Jew or Gentile, rich or poor and in a class or rank.

I have never seen "all" defined this way in any Bible text I have read, perhaps one that clearly teaches this can be cited. Yet using these words (the definition of all as it is given here) does not contain any words that would suggest that "all" actually does not mean all humans on the face of the earth, because all regardless fall into all three categories.

As well John Chapter one represents all mankind on the face of the earth. There are no indicators that tell us in the context of John 1 and this passage that less than the scope of all humans of all time are not the intent and meaning of the text. There are no words in the text to indicate less or other.

Verse 6 reads, "The one having given him a ransom on behalf of all the testimony in its own times" (word for word)

"who gave himself as a ransom for all men the testimony given in its proper time." NIV

Jesus was the "ransom"

In Act 17 we are informed of God's global reach and purpose: 17:30"In the past God over looked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent"

To command all people everywhere to repent can only be if all people are have had the ransom paid as it states in I Tim. 2:6. It would be a contradiction of intent, purpose and God's holiness to position the scripture to mean that repentance and the ransom was not for all people everywhere.