Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

[Rufus]

As I looked at all this again, it seemed we're having the Bill Clinton argument - it depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.

I'm thankful that our God has men that have done the work to preserve and instruct how His chosen language of Scripture actually works. There's one thing I wrote that I'd tighten up just a bit, but it won't do you any good as you couldn't understand anything beyond your calvinistic and English orientation. You're not even up to speed on the debates within your chosen camp.

Now, it's been clear that you haven't got a discerning cell in your soul and thrive on ad hominem gutter interactions.

I'm not interested. I've read no further than your first sentence.

Of course, you haven't. We all know your modus operandi. You're so blind to your man-centered theology that you can't even detect the contradiction in your opening words. "IS" in 1Tim 4:10 means whatever you want it to mean. In terms of believers, it means God is actually their savior. But in regards to unbelievers it only means he's their potential savior. Most honest people would call this DOUBLESPEAK.

 

[Rufus]

Here's a link to an excellent commentary on 1Tim 4:10 And not "excellent" only because it aligns with mine very nicely, but also because the commentator knows how to cut to the chase and get to the heart of the matter. And I'm not surprised that this commentary comes from a Sovereign Grace Fellowship church. Of all the denominations out there, I'm quite partial to this one in particular because their teaching and preaching is so spot-on the vast majority of the time. (I truly wish there was a Soverign Grace Church in the neck of my woods, but alas there are none.)

The commentator made the same connection I made with 1Tim 2:4-7, although he didn't specifically identify "all men" with Gentiles per se, as I have done. But he did spend some time evaluating Strong's 3956, "pas", and he understood it as referring to "all or many kinds". But now here's the kicker and why it's so important to place ourselves into the boots of the Original Audience and the Writer- --: Both of whom are Jews! To a Jewish mind there were only two kinds of people in the World: Jews, the chosen, covenant, privileged people of God who were holy, clean and circumcised, and their counterparts are all Gentiles who are alienated and strangers to God's covenants and promises and to the written code of His Law, thus making them unholy, uncircumcised and unclean. And Paul very clearly revealed his mindset in 2:7 when he told Timothy that he was appointed him as apostle for the specific purpose of preaching and teaching the gospel to the Gentiles, thereby identifying for us readers who specifically "all men" are vv. 4 and 6. Paul did not have each and every person in the world in mind (Jews and Gentiles) when he wrote "all men". He only had Gentiles in his mind. Therefore, this limits the extent of "all". "All" is being used in the sense of "many", as the commentator points out. Coversely, "many" is never used in a universal sense to mean "all".

The writer's understainding, as well as my own, of 1Tim 4:10 comport very well with the unconditional NC promises. In those promises God does not portray himself as a mere "potential" Savior any more than he did when he "came down" to save the ancient Hebrews from Pharaoh. Here's the link to a relatively short read.

https://salvationbygrace.org/current-qa/1-timothy-410/