Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Explaining the "all men" of 1 Timothy 2:4 -
May 20th, 2012, 04:21 AM
The famous English preacher C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892), a staunch a Calvinist, once commented that, although he was a firm believer in Limited Atonement, he could find no support for such doctrine in the following passage of 1 Timothy. Rather, he felt that, if God had wanted to indicate that the phrase “all men” repeated throughout meant (merely) “all kinds of men”, He would have simply written it as such.
This apparent anomaly did not deter or dampen Spurgeon’s conviction as to the truth of Limited Atonement: he simply, and to the credit of his integrity, did not feel to tamper with the passage in order to get it to say what Calvinism taught. For the word of God is indeed sacred.
Below we show what Spurgeon missed – that by “all men” Paul does indeed intend “all kinds of men”, and that therefore the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not abrogated by the text.
The exposition is necessarily brief as it concerns itself almost exclusively with the understanding of the phrase “all men”.
This work may be quoted within the thread, but may not be reproduced outside the thread without the express permission of the author.
_______________________________________
(LIMITED) EXPOSITION OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:1-7
[1] “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; [2] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”
This “all men” here, is easily enough taken as a general “everyone”, for it is followed up immediately with an example of those various in authority. In line with this, we all at some stage or other wave our arms in the air and refer to “everyone!”, without actually intending "every single person".
So it is not at this early stage in the passage, that Calvinism’s Limited Atonement incurs any significant bother.
[3] “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
At this point here however, Calvinism’s Limited Atonement starts to look weaker, for “all men” is now mentioned without qualification. For unlike the previous verse, there is no reference to various kinds of men to help ward off the notion that “all men” is indeed a reference to every single man in the world.
However by no means is the Calvinist assertion at the point of falling over here, for we (also) read that the obedience of the church at Rome had “come abroad unto all men” – surely not intending “every man in the world”.
And we read of the Corinthians that they were an “epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men” – again surely not “every man in the world”.
And yet even stronger support do we find in the epistle to the Thessalonians, for in speaking of the Jews, Paul states:
“Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.”
: it is clear that by “all men” here Paul intends: “peoples other than the Jews”.
And so we will read on with Calvinism's Limited Atonement still intact.
[5] “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; [6] Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
But by virtue of sheer repetition, together with the necessarily-indiscriminate nature of the God-to-man mediator notion here - the latter echoing the seemingly universal mood of v3 - it is at this point in the passage that the modern evangelical mind is perhaps overwhelmed to conclude that this “all [(men)]” is, at the very least here at v6, a reference to “every single man”, and that finally enough straws have been laid upon the Calvinist’s camel, to break its Limited Atonement back.
But to the contrary, it is in fact this very verse (6) which provides conclusive, irrefutable proof that the phrase “all men” used throughout these seven verses, is indeed a reference to all kinds of men (i.e. all men irrespective of race, colour, and background), and not at all to every single man. For it is this verse and only this verse which contains the logical key to the interpretation of the phrase.
For we are told here that there was a testimony, and therefore a witness as to the meaning of “all [(men)]”.
Considering this testimony then, we are told not that it testified (merely) to the singular fact of Christ’s giving Himself as a ransom (of which fact it was not possible to testify anyway, for there could be no proof in the (mere) outward appearance of the Lord’s crucifixion that such was indeed a ransom), but rather, to the compound fact of His giving Himself "a ransom for all", which is, and taking our Christian faith as a given, at least objectively verifiable.
Accordingly, we note that if this “all” stood for “every single man”, what would be required as objectively-verifiable testimony, would be the subsequent conversion of every single man. Else how could it be "testified" that He had given Himself a ransom for all?
But if that which stood for “all kinds of men” (i.e. all men irrespective of race, colour, and background), what would be required as objectively-verifiable testimony, would be the conversion of the same, to wit, the conversion of both Jews and Gentiles.
And indeed this is what we find, for we find in the book of Acts the account of the theretofore unheard-of conversion of thousands of Gentiles, and even the further falling upon them of the Holy Spirit, most notably the household of Cornelius.
And we are further told in the same book that such had been prophesied as the rebuilding of the (spiritual) tabernacle of David (Acts 15: 14-16).
And because such a conversion would be in stark contrast to the theretofor-entrenched notion that God’s kingdom was confined to the Jews, we would expect to see some significant opposition from those first in the faith who had naturally spent their formative years in the old Jewish school of thought. And so at the very minimum we will note Peter’s resistance in the matter of Cornelius, figured in his refusal to partake of foods declared in the law as “unclean” (Acts 10).
[7] “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; ) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”
And so Paul at the last confirms our rendering that this “all men” is indeed rightly taken to mean “all kinds of men”, for hot on the heels of his allusion to the testimony to such, he here reminds us that it was for such purpose that he was a made “a teacher of the Gentiles” .
In concluding…..
It is perhaps not insignificant that God appointed this passage to be written to the man Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess, but whose father a Greek.
For what better way to confirm the required particular hermeneutic, than to (cryptically) signify it in the lineage of the one to whom the letter was written, one who most certainly could identify with the ‘coming together’ of the Jew and the Gentile, in one new Man.
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace" Eph 2:15
Amen.
Last edited by Colossians; May 21st, 2012 at 08:56 PM.
Slogan/motto:
II Timothy 2:15, Psalms 6:5, I John 3:1-2, Romans 5:1 I John 4:18, I Timothy 2:4-5, II Corinthians 9:8,11, III John 2
Reputation:
May 20th, 2012, 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colossians
The famous English preacher C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892), a staunch a Calvinist, once commented that, although he was a firm believer in Limited Atonement, he could find no support for such doctrine in the following passage of 1 Timothy. Rather, he felt that, if God had wanted to indicate that the phrase “all men” repeated throughout meant (merely) “all kinds of men”, He would have simply written it as such.
This apparent anomaly did not deter or dampen Spurgeon’s conviction as to the truth of Limited Atonement: he simply, and to the credit of his integrity, did not feel to tamper with the passage in order to get it to say what Calvinism taught. For the word of God is indeed sacred.
Below we show what Spurgeon missed – that by “all men” Paul does indeed intend “all kinds of men”, and that therefore the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not abrogated by the text.
The exposition is necessarily brief as it concerns itself almost exclusively with the understanding of the phrase “all men”.
This work may be quoted within the thread, but may not be reproduced outside the thread without the express permission of the author.
_______________________________________
(LIMITED) EXPOSITION OF 1 TIMOTHY 2:1-7
[1] “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; [2] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”
This “all men” here, is easily enough taken as a general “everyone”, for it is followed up immediately with an example of those various in authority. In line with this, we all at some stage or other wave our arms in the air and refer to “everyone!”
So it is not at this early stage in the passage, that Calvinism’s Limited Atonement incurs any significant bother.
[3] “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
At this point here however, Calvinism’s Limited Atonement starts to look weaker, for “all men” is now mentioned without qualification. For unlike the previous verse, there is no reference to various kinds of men to help ward off the notion that “all men” is indeed a reference to every single man in the world.
However by no means is the Calvinist assertion at the point of falling over here, for we (also) read that the obedience of the church at Rome had “come abroad unto all men” – surely not intending “every man in the world”.
And we read of the Corinthians that they were an “epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men” – again surely not “every man in the world”.
And yet even stronger support do we find in the epistle to the Thessalonians, for in speaking of the Jews, Paul states:
“Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.”
: it is clear that by “all men” here Paul intends: “peoples other than the Jews”.
And so we will read on with Calvinism's Limited Atonement still intact.
[5] “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; [6] Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
But by virtue of sheer repetition, together with the necessarily-indiscriminate nature of the God-to-man mediator notion here - the latter echoing the seemingly universal mood of v3 - it is at this point in the passage that the modern evangelical mind is perhaps overwhelmed to conclude that this “all [(men)]” is, at the very least here at v6, a reference to “every single man”, and that finally enough straws have been laid upon the Calvinist’s camel, to break its Limited Atonement back.
But to the contrary, it is in fact this very verse (6) which provides conclusive, irrefutable proof that the phrase “all men” used throughout these seven verses, is indeed a reference to all kinds of men (i.e. all men irrespective of race, colour, and background), and not at all to every single man. For it is this verse and only this verse which contains the logical key to the interpretation of the phrase.
For we are told here that there was a testimony, and therefore a witness as to the meaning of “all [(men)]”.
Considering this testimony then, we are told not that it testified (merely) to the singular fact of Christ’s giving Himself as a ransom (of which fact it was not possible to testify anyway, for there could be no proof in the (mere) outward appearance of the Lord’s crucifixion that such was indeed a ransom), but rather, to the compound fact of His giving Himself "a ransom for all", which is, and taking our Christian faith as a given, at least objectively verifiable.
Accordingly, we note that if this “all” stood for “every single man”, what would be required as objectively-verifiable testimony, would be the subsequent conversion of every single man. Else how could it be testified that He had given Himself a ransom for all?
But if that which stood for “all kinds of men” (i.e. all men irrespective of race, colour, and background), what would be required as objectively-verifiable testimony, would be the conversion of the same, to wit, the conversion of both Jews and Gentiles.
And indeed this is what we find, for we find in the book of Acts the account of the theretofore unheard-of conversion of thousands of Gentiles, and even the further falling upon them of the Holy Spirit, most notably the household of Cornelius.
And we are further told in the same book that such had been prophesied as the rebuilding of the (spiritual) tabernacle of David (Acts 15: 14-16).
And because such a conversion would be in stark contrast to the theretofor-entrenched notion that God’s kingdom was confined to the Jews, we would expect to see some significant opposition from those first in the faith who had naturally spent their formative years in the old Jewish school of thought. And so at the very minimum we will note Peter’s resistance in the matter of Cornelius, figured in his refusal to partake of foods declared in the law as “unclean” (Acts 10).
[7] “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; ) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”
And so Paul at the last confirms our rendering that this “all men” is indeed rightly taken to mean “all kinds of men”, for hot on the heels of his allusion to the testimony to such, he here reminds us that it was for such purpose that he was a made “a teacher of the Gentiles” .
In concluding…..
It is perhaps not insignificant that God appointed this passage to be written to the man Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess, but whose father a Greek.
For what better way to confirm the required particular hermeneutic, than to (cryptically) signify it in the lineage of the one to whom the letter was written, one who most certainly could identify with the ‘coming together’ of the Jew and the Gentile, in one new Man.
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace" Eph 2:15
Amen.
God's will is that all men, all men without exception, be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
However, God having given men freedom to choose, knows that all men, all without exception, will not choose to believe to be saved, let alone come to the knowledge of the truth.
All can mean:
1. all without exception
2. all within a distinct category
What God wants, desires is not what God is going to get. He knows that, but God's desire remains the same.
God's desire is that all men, without exception, be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
oatmeal
"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42
"For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" Psalm 6:5
Let us look at the following verse that speaks of a "free gift" that comes upon "all men":
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Ro.5:18).
Sir Robert Anderson says, "And this (reconciliation) is the free gift of the 5th of Romans. It is not righteousness, it is not life; though it is unto righteousness, and brings life to the sinner who receives it. It has effects as widespread as the sin of Adam. 'As through one trespass the came unto all men to condemnation, even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto men to justification of life.' Not that all men a in fact made righteous, but that such was the direction and tendency of the grace" (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry, 141-142).
Indeed, the Greek word translated "unto" in the phrase "free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" is a preposition which speaks of "direction":
" 'eis', a Prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
The word 'tendency" is a synonym for the word "direction" and "a TENDENCY is an inclination toward a certain line of action (whether or not the action follows), and is often the result of inherent qualities, nature and habit" (The American College Dictionary).
Now let us look at the verse again:
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Ro.5:18).
Since in the first instance where the words "all men" are used they obviously refer to all men everywhere then common sense dictates that the second time those same words are used the meaning is also all men everywhere.
Last edited by Jerry Shugart; May 22nd, 2012 at 09:08 AM.
I will give you this. When I ask godrulz what Paul is really saying, he won't answer. At least you tried to makes something up for your lie.
Are your words addressed to me?
If they are then please tell me exactly what I said which you think is a "lie."
It is an easy thing to call others liars without providing a shred of evidence that they are. Where I grew up in west Texas if we wanted to call someone a liar we were obligated to at least give evidence.
I see no evidence that you are even attempting to "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph.4:1-3).
You seem to think that you are above the normal rules of civility and you evidently could care less if you walk with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering.
Slogan/motto:
Being led into relationships by urgings of love which arise and are sustained naturally and spontaneously within my heart, is always 'God-righteous' even if I have to transgress the Ten Commandments.
Reputation:
May 20th, 2012, 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colossians
The famous English preacher C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892), a staunch a Calvinist, once commented that, although he was a firm believer in Limited Atonement, he could find no support for such doctrine in the following passage of 1 Timothy. Rather, he felt that, if God had wanted to indicate that the phrase “all men” repeated throughout meant (merely) “all kinds of men”, He would have simply written it as such.
Amen.
1 Timothy: 2 verse: 4 must not cancel 'many are called and few chosen' nor can it cancel 'let the dead bury their dead'.
Therefore, at best, in 1 Timothy: 2 verse: 4, "Who will have all men to be saved' did not say all men will be saved. It say "It is God's will that All men be saved".
However God's will is not done by all men. In fact the very great majority (i.e. all but a few) of those called to Christianity do not do the will of God and they err and do not make it . . . . i.e. many are called but few chosen (only the few who make it are chosen).
And 'the dead' cannot do the will of God. 'The dead' are those whose hearts are "waxed gross". They are not given to know Truth including the will of God (re. Matthews: 13 verses: 10 to 17 and 1 Corinthians: 2 verses: 9 to 14)
The path to doing the will of God is well laid out in the KJV N.T.
Last edited by Gurucam; May 20th, 2012 at 12:50 PM.
Slogan/motto:
Being led into relationships by urgings of love which arise and are sustained naturally and spontaneously within my heart, is always 'God-righteous' even if I have to transgress the Ten Commandments.
Reputation:
May 21st, 2012, 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colossians
None of you has addressed the OP.
So you all have a lot of reading to do.
This apparent anomaly did not deter or dampen Spurgeon’s conviction as to the truth of Limited Atonement: he simply, and to the credit of his integrity, did not feel to tamper with the passage in order to get it to say what Calvinism taught. For the word of God is indeed sacred.
Below we show what Spurgeon missed – that by “all men” Paul does indeed intend “all kinds of men”, and that therefore the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not abrogated by the text
To the discredit of your integrity, you feel free to tamper with the passage in order to get it to say what Calvinism taught.
Remember your own words: "For the word of God is indeed sacred."
The KJV N.T. was preserved in it's full authentic integrity, do not add works to it to serve your own ideas and intent.
This is what Jesus said through Paul: It is the will of God that All man be saved.
However God will will be done on earth (i.e. as it is done in heaven) only when His kingdom of heaven comes to earth. Until then God's will is not and will not be, done on earth (i.e. as it is done in heaven). Therefore All men are not saved and all men will not be saved.
Additionally Jesus instructed: "seek ye first the kingdom of God within thy heart and All things will be added" . . . . this is the will of God.
The very great majority of those called to traditional Christianity assume that All things will simply drop from heaven on to them, without any works on their part. They do not seek, first (or at all), the kingdom of God within their own heart. They are not saved. They are among the great majority (i.e. all but the few) who are called to Christianity and are misled by your kind of erroneous alternative doctrine and are not chosen.
. . . . What might be your interest in converting "all men" to "all kinds of men? Doesn't 'all men' includes 'all kinds of men' and all others as well?
Last edited by Gurucam; May 21st, 2012 at 04:46 AM.
Collosians proves yet again that [a] He doesn't know Greek, and [b] he assumes Calvinism to prove Calvinism.
Quote:
[1] “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
[2] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”
This “all men” here, is easily enough taken as a general “everyone”, for it is followed up immediately with an example of those various in authority. In line with this, we all at some stage or other wave our arms in the air and refer to “everyone!”, without actually intending "every single person".
Collosians clearly doesn't get it. Thanksgiving is made on behalf of all men (for their benefit), and thanksgiving is made for kings and all those in authority.
So, the first "all men" is literally everyone everywhere, making the assumption that all men are under some authority. I suppose we might exempt the highest authority in any given sovereignty, but that exception only confirms that we're talking about all men. It doesn't matter which king or which authority, the point is that if we give thanks on behalf of all men for our leaders, our leaders will respond by letting us live in peace and quiet.
With the point being that if the king isn't making a lot of turmoil, we can preach the gospel with greater freedom, resulting in:
Quote:
[3] “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
Thus, "all men" would refer to any who are under authority, for which we should give thanks on behalf of, so our leaders will let us live in peace, so we can preach to them.
The local context is both clear and obvious.
Quote:
However by no means is the Calvinist assertion at the point of falling over here, for we (also) read that the obedience of the church at Rome had “come abroad unto all men” – surely not intending “every man in the world”.
And we read of the Corinthians that they were an “epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men” – again surely not “every man in the world”.
And yet even stronger support do we find in the epistle to the Thessalonians, for in speaking of the Jews, Paul states:
“Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.”
: it is clear that by “all men” here Paul intends: “peoples other than the Jews”.
Collosians, however, commits the root fallacy by claiming that "all" in other contexts must mean the same thing as "all" here. Clearly "all" can be qualified by context. However, "all" in 1 Tim 2 is not qualified by "all" in Corinthians or Romans or Thessalonians.
So, that entire line of argumentation is simply invalid. Collosians fails completely, here. This is called "refuting Scripture with Scripture", and is invalid.
Quote:
[5] “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; [6] Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
But by virtue of sheer repetition, together with the necessarily-indiscriminate nature of the God-to-man mediator notion here - the latter echoing the seemingly universal mood of v3 - it is at this point in the passage that the modern evangelical mind is perhaps overwhelmed to conclude that this “all [(men)]” is, at the very least here at v6, a reference to “every single man”, and that finally enough straws have been laid upon the Calvinist’s camel, to break its Limited Atonement back.
And here Collosians assumes Calvinism to prove Calvinism. However, only the hardest of old school Calvinists still think that limited atonement means that Christ actually only died for the elect. Scriptural evidence clearly points to the atonement being made for all men (1 John 2:2, Rom 5:18, etc.), and Paul repeats this here.
What is certain is that Collosians has no evidence from this context to suggest that "all men" isn't actually every man, everywhere, which is why he must refute Scripture with his systematic theology.
Quote:
[7] “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; ) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”
And so Paul at the last confirms our rendering that this “all men” is indeed rightly taken to mean “all kinds of men”, for hot on the heels of his allusion to the testimony to such, he here reminds us that it was for such purpose that he was a made “a teacher of the Gentiles” .
Collosians makes one last ditch attempt to try to save his exegesis by saying that Paul resets context because he only preaches to Gentiles.
However, the fact that Paul is a teacher of the Gentiles does not cause us to believe that God only wants to save Gentiles, or that Christ only died for Gentiles.
Indeed, what we see here does not change the meaning of "all men" used to this point at all, as we have previously been talking about who God wishes to be saved, and now we're talking about who Paul preaches to.
So, Collosians' attempt fails miserably. Again.
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Slogan/motto:
Being led into relationships by urgings of love which arise and are sustained naturally and spontaneously within my heart, is always 'God-righteous' even if I have to transgress the Ten Commandments.
Reputation:
May 21st, 2012, 07:44 AM
Dear Colossians,
You are saying that the famous English preacher C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892), was a firm believer in Limited Atonement, however he did not corrupt scriptures so as to make it support his belief.
Then you said: "Below we show what Spurgeon missed – that by “all men” Paul does indeed intend “all kinds of men”, and that therefore the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not abrogated by the text."
I understand you to mean: You cannot find any support for putting to an end "the doctrine of Limited Atonement" in that revelation (i.e. 1 Timothy 2:4).
You are finding some sort of support for converting 'all men', in that revelation, to 'all kinds of men' in order to justify your claim.
Is this wrong?
Last edited by Gurucam; May 21st, 2012 at 08:07 AM.
What God wants, desires is not what God is going to get.
That goes for your idol god, not the one of scripture !
The Man of sin followers do not believe in the True God, for they do not believe that God is absolutely Sovereign over all things, and especially over who is Saved by Him.
Anyone who believes that God desires to save all men without exception, because of their willful perversion of 1 Tim 2:4
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
I say willful because most in the religious circles have had explained to them that all does not always mean all without exception in scripture,
But in any case, the man of sin followers say that God desires the Salvation of all men without exception, but God's desire is not realized, for scripture clearly reveals all without exception shall not be saved !
For anyone to say that God's desire is not realized, is not done, they reject the Sovereignty of God, simple as that, for intents and purposes they are atheist ! There is no God if He is not Sovereign over all things especially Salvation !
3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
That word pleased is the hebrew word chaphets and means:
to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with
Its translated desire 9 times in the OT !
And the word done is the greek word asah and means:
to do, fashion, accomplish, make
a) (Qal)
1) to do, work, make, produce
a) to do
b) to work
c) to deal (with)
d) to act, act with effect, effect
So whatever God desires, He effects by His Power !
So be it known to everyone one of us, who interpret 1 Tim 2:4 to mean that God desires the Salvation of every single individual in the world without exception, and yet does not actually effect it and realize it, you deny the Sovereign God of the scripture, you reject the God of Ps 115:3 and serve an idol of your imagination !
Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Slogan/motto:
Being led into relationships by urgings of love which arise and are sustained naturally and spontaneously within my heart, is always 'God-righteous' even if I have to transgress the Ten Commandments.
Reputation:
May 21st, 2012, 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick M
I like how all flesh died and the whole of the earth doesn't mean all flesh died and the whole of the earth. And all men doesn't mean all men.
What do you mean?
It is popular for some to say: 'all flesh is dead', so now there is nothing to do?
Is this what you are saying?
If yes, what does this statement means, please provide more details of what you mean.
If all flesh is dead (and that is all there is to it), then all must and will be chosen. However Jesus confirmed that only a few are chosen.
Please explain in some more details and words . . . . what are you trying to convey?
Linear Mode
