How do Calvinists explain away 1 Timothy 2:3-4?

[Scotth1960]

Friends, How do those of you who are Calvinists explain away I Timothy 2:3-4

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be

saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"?

Calvinists believe God desires only some to be saved, the elect, and only the elect to

come to the knowledge of the truth. How do Calvinists say that all men does not mean

all men? All people? The NT uses the word "men" to include men, women, and children.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[phil36]

Friends, How do those of you who are Calvinists explain away I Timothy 2:3-4

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be

saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"?

Calvinists believe God desires only some to be saved, the elect, and only the elect to

come to the knowledge of the truth. How do Calvinists say that all men does not mean

all men? All people? The NT uses the word "men" to include men, women, and children.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

I think you will find the answer when you understand Paul's polemic keep searching

Would these false teachers be refering to an all inclusivsim? bear this in mind when reading the text

What is the arguement in 1 Timothy, what is this letter answering. Read, read and reread (carefully).

 

[Hearer]

God is disappointed in those who are the sons of perdition, wanting everyone to rather be saved. But not all have been predestined to be God's children. Just as set out in the parable of the sower. Some seeds, people, have been sown amongst us as the enemy.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

Friends, How do those of you who are Calvinists explain away I Timothy 2:3-4

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be

saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"?

Calvinists believe God desires only some to be saved, the elect, and only the elect to

come to the knowledge of the truth. How do Calvinists say that all men does not mean

all men? All people? The NT uses the word "men" to include men, women, and children.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

I think they argue that the context of the verse is speaking of the elect. So, speaking of the elect, God desires that all of them (men, women, and children) be saved. (I'm not a Calvinist.)

 

[Hearer]

I ama not a calvanist either but i believe God truly wants everyone to be saved. And is willing to wait, being patient as he is. But there is the "elect" who been predestined from the beginning to be given to Jesus. They are not the sons of perdition who are wicked. So sad for a father to see his own creation being wicked.

 

[Scotth1960]

[quote=phil36;448146]I think you will find the answer when

you understand Paul's polemic keep searching

Would these false teachers be refering to an all inclusivsim?

bear this in mind when reading the text

What is the arguement in 1 Timothy, what is this letter

answering. Read, read and reread (carefully).

[/quote]

Dear phil36, Sorry. That equivocation will not do! (And by the

way, St. Paul didn't use polemic. He was a peaceful apostle of

Christ and did all things in love (1 Cor. 13), and he fought

heresies without polemic, with love and mercy. Polemic, as

some apologists use it today, is all about making arguments for

false doctrines based on the false Reformation premise of sola

Scriptura). Remember, as a free human being, you are under

no obligation to be deceived by Calvinism. But, if you do

believe in Calvinism, by definition, you believe one or more

heresies, not the least of which is the heresy of double

predestination. 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9 are against

Calvinism. John 15:26 is against Calvinist Filioquism. Calvinists

also believe, with John Calvin, that the Holy Spirit proceeds

from both the Father and the Son together. That is what they

confess in their "Westminster Confession of Faith" (of 1647

AD). But Scripture says OTHERWISE. Please pay attention to

JESUS CHRIST our LORD GOD and Saviour, Who, says, in St.

John 15:26: "But when the Comforter is come, Whom I shall

send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, which

proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify to Me." Notice,

the text says who "proceedeth from the Father". Not from the

Father "And the Son" (Filioque). The words "and the Son" were

not spoken anywhere, or any time, by Jesus Christ our LORD.

Amen.

Come LORD Jesus! Calvinism is, with Roman Catholicism,

Anglican, and Lutheranism, and any other form of belief that

says "and the Son", a semi-Sabellian heresy. Take care.

Calvinism's two chief heresies

1. double predestination (against all of the Scriptures).

Especially 1 Tim. 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9.

2. double procession of the Holy Spirit (against John 15:26).

God save us all in Christ Jesus. But it would be impossible for

any one to pray to be saved, if God is going to predestine some

people to be damned, how could anyone pray? Calvinism, also,

makes God the author of sin. Because Calvinism believes,

illogically, for God to be truly Sovereign, He must be the

predestining cause of everything that happens. That belief is

false. God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. He

can not be the author of sin. Or it would be His will for some

people to disobey His will, and God would be working against

Himself. Which is clearly against God's holy character and

righteousness, and is impossible. God is God. He doesn't

predestine evil. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

PS Of course, a Calvinist, deceived as he is by his false

"theology", will try to quote the Bible out of context to try to

prove his pet doctrine of double predestination. Go figure.

God is not interested in defending Calvinism. God wants people

to believe in Him using their own free will. God doesn't force

anything, for a truly Sovereign God can pre-ordain the salvation

in Christ Jesus of His elect, His Church, according to their faith

in Christ Jesus by the free will of the elect Christians.

 

[phil36]

Hi Scott,

I presume you do not understand what polemic is.

Anyhow you still havent looked to see what Paul was answering? And by the way most of the letters where occasional, I presume you do know that and what that actually means?

I'll give you an example. When you write a love letter to your fiance or wife..you answer a question! you are answering the question of how and why you love her. When we write we are answering questions, you may not be particularily be asking them but they do answer.

Now back to your post, I think you have most definately misred Paul if you think he has no polemic.. Have you read Galatians, 1&2 Corithinians ?????

Anyhow, read careful ask yourself what is the " occasion" of the letter. if you can't do that get yourself a good commentary.


Another point, why do seem to believe that those who are reformed don't think man is free ton think within his nature? when you are by nature sinful everything you do will be within that framework, your will is bound to your nature!! quite simple really.

 

[Scotth1960]

Hi Scott,

I presume you do not understand what polemic is.

Anyhow you still havent looked to see what Paul was answering? And by the way most of the letters where occasional, I presume you do know that and what that actually means?

I'll give you an example. When you write a love letter to your fiance or wife..you answer a question! you are answering the question of how and why you love her. When we write we are answering questions, you may not be particularily be asking them but they do answer.

Now back to your post, I think you have most definately misred Paul if you think he has no polemic.. Have you read Galatians, 1&2 Corithinians ?????

Anyhow, read careful ask yourself what is the " occasion" of the letter. if you can't do that get yourself a good commentary.


Another point, why do seem to believe that those who are reformed don't think man is free ton think within his nature? when you are by nature sinful everything you do will be within that framework, your will is bound to your nature!! quite simple really.

Dear phil, I refrain from using the word polemic, because St. Paul did good. But some interpreters of the Bible try to wrap up their theology in St. Paul, but they misinterpret him (2 Peter 3:15-26). So what Calvinists do in their arguments and what St. Paul did in his arguments are two different, distinct things, so I refrain from calling St. Paul's actions polemic if the same word is being applied to Calvinist polemic. Or Arminian polemic for that manner. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, nor am I semi-Sabellian. Synergy is a teaching of the NT, but that is not semi-Sabellian. Some Calvinist people have falsely called me a heretic for believing what St. John Cassian taught in this matter. They think if anyone co-operates with God, he is a heretic because only monergism is seen to be correct doctrine. Take care. God bless you. In Erie Scott PS Calvinism gets its doctrine of original sin from Roman Catholicism. Original sin is not biblical. Eastern Orthodoxy goes with Scripture, particularly Ezekiel 18, which is against the idea of collective guilt and guilt based on what some other man, Adam, did.

 

[DiscipleWilliam]

Greetings,

It is quite certain that when we read that God desires that all men to be saved it does not mean that He absolutely wills it with the force of a decree or a Divine purpose, for if He did then all men would be saved! So knowing that obvious article we have to interpret all to mean all persons without distinction (Jew + Gentile), also remembering that God has a general love for all of His creation which is evidenced by His long suffering the vessels fitted for destruction, prolonging their judgment for a season(Romans 9:22), and also by commanding that believers treat unbelievers with respect and dignity. So, obviously there is an honest desire there produced by a general love for all creation but that, unfortunately, doesn't superceed His divine purpose.

 

[phil36]

Dear phil, I refrain from using the word polemic, because St. Paul did good. But some interpreters of the Bible try to wrap up their theology in St. Paul, but they misinterpret him (2 Peter 3:15-26). So what Calvinists do in their arguments and what St. Paul did in his arguments are two different, distinct things, so I refrain from calling St. Paul's actions polemic if the same word is being applied to Calvinist polemic. Or Arminian polemic for that manner. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, nor am I semi-Sabellian. Synergy is a teaching of the NT, but that is not semi-Sabellian. Some Calvinist people have falsely called me a heretic for believing what St. John Cassian taught in this matter. They think if anyone co-operates with God, he is a heretic because only monergism is seen to be correct doctrine. Take care. God bless you. In Erie Scott PS Calvinism gets its doctrine of original sin from Roman Catholicism. Original sin is not biblical. Eastern Orthodoxy goes with Scripture, particularly Ezekiel 18, which is against the idea of collective guilt and guilt based on what some other man, Adam, did.

Hi Scott Disiple william has answered you very clearly

Regarding polemic, you are putting forward polemic, we all do. its an argument.a case to be put forward as against something else.

You have put an argument/polemic as against me and vice versa. learnign language sometimes helps in understanding what has been written.

From reading your post above I have now realised that you do not know reformed theology. secondly, if its all synergystic then it is a form of pelagianism (semi). Do you honestly think that reformed theology says everything is monergistic. If you do you have shown yourself to be without knowledge in your polemic.

 

[ChirstNotCalvin]

Answer from a non calvanist - Read Spurgen's Sermon 1516


"God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."—1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Salvation by Knowing the Truth

Hope this helps.

Best Regards to all who read this.

 

[ChirstNotCalvin]

"God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."—1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

The complete sermon can be found at Salvation by Knowing the Truth

 

[phil36]

Hi ChristnotCalvin, you should read Spurgions sermon on election, I am sure you would appreciate it.

I have read this spurgeon article before it is very good , He explains very well what this means ::::::>>>>

It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved.

In other words if God actually willed ALL men to be saved they would be. Spurgeon whilst mentionaing Calvinists he means and older lot, some of whom may have been hyper, wich is as wrong as the strongest of arminians.




I love your name, I would agree and so would all those reformed.. Christ is Lord and Saviour, those who are reformed do not follow Calvin although often this is the charge. IN CHRIST ALONE!

SOLI DEO GLORIA

 

[ChirstNotCalvin]

The "will of God" is indeed a huge subject.

Decretive will, Permissive will, Preceptive will to name three. It is this subject that has been so confused over time that I believe has caused a huge amount of trouble. IMHO too many Calvinists have not read the institutes, nor Calvinist history. Spurgeon's "Calvinism still worth proclaiming" mentioned in the previous post is nothing like the Calvinism often put forth today. Unfortunately I have to disagree slightly with the previous email - Not all reformed put Christ first but follow Calvin. Not all, but too many. What follows is the wretched calmian debate.

 

[phil36]

The "will of God" is indeed a huge subject.

Decretive will, Permissive will, Preceptive will to name three. It is this subject that has been so confused over time that I believe has caused a huge amount of trouble. IMHO too many Calvinists have not read the institutes, nor Calvinist history. Spurgeon's "Calvinism still worth proclaiming" mentioned in the previous post is nothing like the Calvinism often put forth today. Unfortunately I have to disagree slightly with the previous email - Not all reformed put Christ first but follow Calvin. Not all, but too many. What follows is the wretched calmian debate.

I could easliy say not all arminian put christ first..it hardly bolsters your argument??

Calvins institues are certainly informative and helpful in the pilgrims walk. Yet, do we all agree with every single thought of Calvin, there may be those who do but many don't. Even the Arminian will agree to a decretive will would he not? The Sovereign efficacious will by which God brings to pass whatever He pleases by His divine decree?

Yes, there is a Calvinism well worth proclaiming, but, doesn't that contain many flavours, just like the Arminian tastes of doctrine.

Again, what flavour is your preference, reformed Baptist, Pentecostal, presbyterian..etc..? or if your arminian, what flavour Baptist, Pentecostal..etc?

It is without doubt that presbyterians will differ with Baptists (reformed) vice versa, Yet they all agree in one thing, the monergistic renewal of the heart, thats not to say all of salvation is monergistic! I would say conversion is synergistic.. Am I not reformed?

Your name seems to suggest the gist of your argument, however, It is just a caricatiture that you are trying to draw, that ultimately fall's, for I would agree with you and I can speak for all those reformed that I personally know that it is "In Christ Alone".

Hopefully I can et back to you later, at work at present but I think I will enjoy our conversations.

 

[ChirstNotCalvin]

Hi Phil

You sound angry. You want to "et back" at me" ? I am not a Calvinist because I have spent about 20 years reading just about every calvinist book that exist. Not just for my Phd but I needed to know if God pre-dams people as Calvin himself published as quoted previously. I am fortunate in being fluent in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. Of all the Biblical texts I have endeavored to study, I find NO God never does this.

Does this make me an Arminian, Semi Pelegian or whatever ? NO. Whether other man made clubs put Christ first is neither here nor there. There is one huge difference though between Calvin and the rest. Calvin published his dogmas. Hence they can be put side by side with the gospel. Jacob Arminus did not which is why he gets a lot less flak. But even if he did and it did not stack up, as with Calvin's dogma then why support it?

I am from the Middle East and can reliably inform you that the western Calvin/Arminian debate has never been an issue. The greek/manichee influence never came our way. Thank God.

You mention renewal of the heart but your tone does not indicate that. In my country we are a minority in the face of Islam. We get locked up, beaten up. Yet we do not want to 'get back at them' or have any wish to engage in a rage. You are obviously a Calvinist and do not anything said against Calvins dogma.

The bottom line though is who save you. Christ - Not Calvin

 

[ChirstNotCalvin]

Anyone seen Phill36 ? On a different forum he states "We are DEAD in sin but still responsible". When asked to explain he went offline.

Please can anyone explain this. Please.