1 Tim. 2:4

Here is my argument for the meaning of the word "all" in verse four, according to the context.

First, Paul instructs believers to pray for "all people" in verse one. Is this a universal "all" or are believers supposed to pray only for other believers? Then he names a subset of "all", that being "kings and "all" who are in high positions". Again, are believers supposed to pray universally for those in high positions or only for believers who are in high positions?

In both cases, the answer is universal. Believers are to pray for all people universally and for all kings and rulers universally.

If Paul is using "all" universally in verses 1 and 2, (and he is!) then one MUST take his meaning in verse 4 in a universal sense as well, unless there is a reason IN THE CONTEXT to do otherwise.

There is NO REASON in the context to change the meaning of the word in verse 4. Therefore verse 4 plainly teaches that God desires all people universally and without exception to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Furthermore, verse 5 teaches that Jesus is the one mediator between God and (all)men(universally).

AND, verse 6 teaches that Christ Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all (men, universally).

Unless you can show me FROM THE CONTEXT why the meaning of "all" should change from the clear universal sense of verses 1 and 2, I'm sticking to my guns!!!

 

Hi Southern;
I wonder when you were in school did you hate the subject of English. I did. I didn't even like the thought of going to that class at all. This statement below is why I ask.

If we took the true meaning as it is stated then we would have to leave all the women out of Salvation. We know of course that isn't what is meant. Women are men just with a "wo" and how hehehe!
The word all is all inclusive but then we are left with what all as you imply. Well the answer is right in the verse. The adjective is men this means every man there is on the planet or off hehehe!
The word men in this instance is non descriptive as to which men so why should we assume that the author is refering to individual types of men?.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

Hey Southern,

Man you're tackling the old "all always means all" argument. Well, here goes nothing.

Col. 3:11: ... Christ is all, and in all.

Clearly (From the Arminian hermeneutic) this text must mean that Christ is all (i.e. He's Christ, Satan, righteousness, wickedness, etc. - obvious sarcasm for effect) and that He is in all (i.e. in every single human being who has ever lived.)

You know I had a guy recently cite Romans 8:32 as the "definitive verse bashing limited atonement."

Romans 8:32: He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

But if one reads this chapter carefully, from 8:18 to the end of the chapter there are over 40 personal pronouns. And every single one of them is speaking of the "sons of God."

But to the 1 Timothy 2 passage. The context of the whole letter seems clear to me. 1 Timothy 1:4 speaks of the "furthering of the (oikos nomos) house law of God." In 1 Timothy 3:15 I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

I think it is equally clear that the Ephesian Christians had a problem with their king and governors. I believe Nero was ruling at the time of this writing, and it would be tempting not to pray for such a wretch. And the under-governors were no less corrupt. Paul says "you have to pray for those for whom it is easy to pray, and for those for whom it is not." And what is the prayer to be? Verse 2: That Paul and the apostles might lead a quiet and tranquil life in all goodliness and dignity. Obviously, if the kings knowingly or unknowingly made it more conducive for Paul and the apostles, it would be easier to lay the Gospel before the Roman Empire. And if the kings would let the apostles be, then it would be easier to move about the Empire to lay the gospel before every tribe, tongue and nation. After all, it is God's desire that people from every tribe, tongue and nation be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

I'll pause here to mention that if one holds the position that God desires the salvation of every single person, then one must also hold that man is absolutely sovereign when it comes to salvation. Man absolutely hold veto power over God who is not only no longer sovereign, but now also relieved of His omnipotence. He cannot, I repeat, cannot accomplish what He so desperately wants to do.

Now Scripture clearly states the opposite.

Is. 46:10-11: "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; {I am} God, and there is no one like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ' My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

If it is God's good pleasure that all men be saved, then they in fact will.

One more reason that I think the "all" in 1 Tim. throughout the passage means "all types" is the little dig Paul shoots in vs. 7. He says to GENTILES in the Ephesian church who loathe the thought of praying for those in authority (class snobbery) that he has been entrusted teaching the GENTILES!

Any thoughts are welcome!

 

Dr. Wilbur B. Wallis, Ph.D. Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Covenant College and Theological Seminary interprets I & II Timothy in the volume, "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Moody Press, p. 1372-1373, '4. Will have. Would have (ASV). Not to be interpreted to mean "decreed," since not all men are saved.' As to I Timothy 2:4 . . .

The Apostle Paul in Romans 5:18 and the Apostle John in I John 2:2 does not say that God only deposits His love on His elect but that His love is infinite and able to reach every lost sinner. At the Great White Throne Judgment [Revelation 20:11] not one sinner will be able to accuse God as to not loving them. The question wll be--have you received His Son, Jesus Christ in your life. This conviction of sin and of the need of Christ may lead a person to faith in Him. This event in time, in the life of the sinner, will determine his or her eternal destination.

Almighty God does know who will become His elect. He has always known who will be the non-elect also, but He never has tilted the balance against them. This would nulify the Attribute of God's nature which is His Divine justice.

 

Incidentally Ray,

Neither Romans 5:18 or 1 John 2:2 says anything at all about the love of God.

Ray wrote:

At the Great White Throne Judgment [Revelation 20:11] not one sinner will be able to accuse God as to not loving them.
------------------------------------------------

Ps. 5:5: The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.

 

Southern,

I and probably most all other Christians are not trying to prove Arminianism; we are studying so we come to an understanding of His truth. I Timothy 2:4 expresses His truth toward His created beings called humans. Arminianism means nothing to me, but Christ's truth has great meaning in my life.

 

Southern, the Ephesians did not have telephones or a phone book. Yet, you somehow construe from my statement that I thought they did though I indicated no such thing. Since you misconstrued my meaning it is no mystery to me that you do not understand what Paul is saying.

 

Southern,

'For you, what would be the purpose of writing any verses of Scripture? Is it not the love of God that motivated the Triune Being to inform us of the covenants? So it is wise not to expunge the love of God from any word of God's holy Word.

If God through John had wanted to express only a Special or Limited atonement the apostle of love would have written I John 2:2 in this way. "And He is the propitiation for our sins." Did the youngest apostle write this. No.

Now read what John did say in 2:2 b, c. This brings a totally new illumination of what Almighty God is saying to us, eliminating the the theological books of men like Drs. Sproul and the late pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. Their views offer a defense of Westminister Theological Seminary but are well outside the pale of our Lord's rich truth.

 

Southern, earlier you said

Where did you get this definition? I've checked a couple of lexicons and I cannot find it.

Also, if Paul is instructing the believers to pray for all kinds of men or all classes of men, does that not include all of the men in the various classes? If so, the effect is the same as I have stated; it is universal.

 

Because Calvinistic doctrine does not have a handle on the truth they cannot preach and witness to the truth that He is (Gr. 'wishing' that all people will become saved). This predisposed view of the Bible blurs the truth and diminishes what the Lord is trying to express to the church, on behalf of all sinners. This hand-me-down theology from early Catholicism blunts the truth of God's unlimited love and Divine justice toward all of His lost creatures, namely men and women.

 

There you go again.

 

Paul 33,

No rebuttal means you do not have a theological defense for your poorly thought out ideas. An other way to say it is, "You have some explaining to do."

Best regards . . .
Ray

 

No, it means I'm tired of correcting someone who is beyond correcting.

 

You must be right before you can correct another person.

Again, ignoring the verses and my explanation will not persuade me or others.

Regards,
Ray