1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

God wants to save everyone without exception?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by npetreley, Jul 15, 2004.

  1. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    That might be more likely if he hadn't just said "to us-ward" or "toward us".

    It is only supported by 1 Tim if you assume that "any/all" means "any/all without exception" in both cases.

    The context of 1 Tim 2 shows that it is "all without distinction" not "all without exception".
     
  2. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I Timothy 2:4 says in the KJV, 'Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.'

    The Greek uses the word, {thelei} which Dr. James Strong says that it means: 'to determine as an active option from a subjective impulse; and by implication meaning to delight in, desire, to be disposed toward, or to intend toward'

    Almighty God in the Person of Jesus has determined within Himself by way of an active option to be 'delighted' with His ruling and or decree that all persons be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    The fact that all will not come nor will they receive Christ, nevertheless, it is His disposition that all human beings become saved and receive eternal life with Him.

    This in no way suggests or even hints at the fact that He is weak in Himself by way of His will to bring all human beings to repentance and faith. God has decreed, in eternity past, that men and women have the option to either turn from their sins, or to remain in them and receive their just dues at the Great White Throne Judgment. {Revelation 20;11}

    This may not be Arminian theology to the fullest extent and it is not, for sure, Calvinistic theology. It is, moreover, Biblical theology and Christianity.

    Dr. Berrian
     
  3. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    That is correct. I happen to believe that the word should be translated "willing" not "wishing", but both support the Calvinist position -- one simply supports it more strongly (willing).

    As I pointed out above, the context tells you to whom the ANY and ALL refer.

    8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any [of us, the beloved] should perish, but that all [of us, the beloved] should come to repentance.


    In other words, God will take as long as it takes to bring in ALL of the elect. He will not bring things to a close until His entire will in this regard is accomplished. One can still translate the word "wishing" and it works perfectly for Calvinism - it's simply not as strong a statement.

    This only becomes a problem for Arminianism if the word is properly translated "willing", because Arminians want the "any" and "all" to refer to "any person without exception" and "all people without exception". In that case, if God is not willing that any without exception perish, and someone DOES perish, then God is not powerful enough to accomplish His own will.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Nick, this translation doesn't make a lick of since within your dogma. Why would God need to be "patient" or "longsuffering" with his elect? What does he have to wait for? He can't be waiting for their repentance or their faith because HE is the one that irresistably causes that to happen and it wouldn't make any sense that He would need to patiently wait for himself to do that which he rebukes and condemns all other men for not doing. Calvinism is the most absurd doctrine when you really look at from a biblical perspective.

    Plus, there are other verses such as Matt. 23:37 and Tim 2:4 that support the idea that God doesn't desire any to perish.
     
  4. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I Timothy 2:4 says in the KJV, 'Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.'

    The Greek uses the word, {thelei} which Dr. James Strong says that it means: 'to determine as an active option from a subjective impulse; and by implication meaning to delight in, desire, to be disposed toward, or to intend toward'

    Almighty God in the Person of Jesus has determined within Himself by way of an active option to be 'delighted' with His ruling that all persons be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    The fact that all will not come nor will they receive Christ, nevertheless, it is His disposition that all human beings become saved and receive eternal life with Him.

    This in no way suggests or even hints at the fact that He is weak in Himself by way of His will to bring all human beings to repentance and faith. God has decreed, in eternity past, that men and women have the option to either turn from their sins, or to remain in them and receive their just dues at the Great White Throne Judgment. {Revelation 20:11}

    Berrian, Th.D.
     
  5. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    I like the way you "edited" the Strongs definition to leave out the primary definitions again. To quote someone else, do I detect a pattern here?

    1. to determine (as an active option from subjective impulse; whereas boulomai - boulomai 1014 properly denotes rather a passive acquiescence in objective considerations), i.e. choose or prefer (literally or figuratively);

    2. by implication, to wish, i.e. be inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly);

    3. impersonally for the future tense, to be about to;

    4. by Hebraism, to delight in:--desire, be disposed (forward), intend, list, love, mean, please, have rather, (be) will (have, -ling, - ling(-ly)).


    It fits Calvinistic soteriology perfectly if you simply see to whom "all" refers. If, as the context indicates, "all" refers to "all men without distinction" (that is, from kings to paupers), then it harmonizes with Calvinism beautifully.

    If "all" means "all without exception" as Arminians wish, then it denotes a God who does not have the power to see His will accomplished.
     
  6. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    The concept of 'not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,' in II Peter 3:9 uses the word, {boullmenos} Gr. which Dr. Strong says, means (not willing, not to be disposed toward, or minded to, or not intending.)

    This Greek word above is a present middle participle. My grammar is weak in that I do not know what the 'present middle participle' means. Do we have any English teachers who know the exact meaning behind this?

    The general meaning cannot be missed. The New Century Version says:

    'He does not want anyone to be lost, but He wants all people to change their hearts and lives.'

    The New International Version says:

    'He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.'

    A better explanation comes from Dr. Kenneth S. Wuest, the Greek scholar, who says in his translation:

    ' . . . but is longsuffering toward us, not having it as His considered will that certain should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'

    Again, what does the present middle participle suggest in English grammar with reference to 'not willing' that any should perish?

    Berrian, Th.D.
     
  7. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually, while an English teacher may know the answers, all of the Greek forms of the participles are not present in English.

    A participle is a verb that points to a noun's action. In the phrase, "a person eating", "eating" describes the action of the "person" much the way an adjective describes a noun.

    A present participle simply means that it is taking place in the present, as opposed to the future (a person going to eat), or past (a person having eaten).

    The middle in present middle participle indicates something like "on behalf of".

    Recall that "willing" in this case modifies a noun. In this case, "willing" modifies what "He" is [not] doing (the way the adjective "sovereign" modifies the noun "He is sovereign".

    Thus, the present middle participle is something like saying, "He does not will on behalf of himself that any should perish."
     
  8. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    By the way, a dangling participle is a verb that is not connected well enough to the correct noun, or where the noun is "assumed" and therefore possibly misunderstood.

    Here's a classic example of a dangling participle (driving):

    "Driving to the store, a rock hit the windshield."

    Was the rock driving to the store?

    My favorite error is the dangling modifier, though.

    "Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know." [to paraphrase Groucho Marx]
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    There is nothing here to indicate God is anywhere speaking of the elect in regards to wanting men saved. In fact, the first part indicates all men -- then it goes into saying God desires that all people come to salvation. The "ransom for all" does not state the ransom is just for the elect or even imply it. There is no reason to believe that these terms using "all" do not mean "all."

    These are the meanings for #3956 "all" in v. 1 ("all people" or "all men"), in v.4 ("all men") and in v.6 where it says "ransom for all"

    I think "all men" is pretty plain.
     
  10. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marcia,

    I've explained the errors in the way people interpret any/all, especially when they do it without considering the context, so many times now that I simply don't have the energy to pursue it again. Believe what you want to believe, or maybe someone else can do it for a while.
     
  11. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    npetreley I am back at your other thread waiting for the fur.
     
  12. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marcia,

    You are right. God's message was and is toward the average reader and not only to scholastic scholars with mystery meanings and interpretations.

    The Greek word, 'all' means every person. Christ's ransom is for all sinners, [I Timothy 2:6] because ' . . . all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.' [Romans 3:23]

    Christ's atonement is for every sinner living within this cosmos/world. [I John 2:2] God did not tell John to write, 'only for the sins of the elect.' Sinners will be without excuse at the judgment, because He made the way to Heaven possible for every depraved sinner. Through it all, God's Divine justice will remain intact. He is the impartial Lord God. [Deuteronomy 10:17 & Romans 2:11]

    Regarding only His elect and not all sinners would be prejudicial. [Deuteronomy 10:17]
     
Loading...