Tulip (the L)

I have yet to see anyone but Jesus Christ who could fulfill this. That's why we needed a sacrifice. The law was perfect...this is referring to the law, btw, but being that man was imperfect he could not keep the law.

Jesus was right that we could earn eternal life by living a sinless life. Of course, as we all know, this is not possible.

May I pose the following illustration.

Some man: "How can a man fly?"

God: "What does science tell you?"

Some man: "If man had wings like a bird he could fly."

God: "You have answered correctly. If a man had wings he could fly."

Here's my question. This is undoubtedly true, if man had wings he could fly, but have you ever seen a man with wings? Natural wings? No, and it ain't gonna happen. That's why we need some outside force to make us fly. That's why we have airplanes. We can now fly, but it's not because we grew wings.

 

in discussing timothy (and any other parts of scripture), we could say that we should consider its immediate context plus related texts from other authors or books within the bible.

however, the best guideline that one can use is to ask himself: "what does the author, Timothy, actually have in mind?" we could all say what Paul said but when we actually know what is in Timothy's mind then that will be strong, regardless of how many outside contexts we interject to come up with its interpretation.

meanwhile, it would help to have a background of Timothy. is he a common speaker, who means what he says with the basic meaning of the words he uses just like Peter? or, being somewhat a mentor of Paul, does he also use words that have so many meanings behind it, leaving the implications to the readers, like what Paul does?

there are interpretations which actually try to change what is in Timothy's mind to conform to their interpretations of other passages. this is not correct. establish what is mean by Timothy by first reading it's own context. without any pre-concieved belief, one could see Timothy's actual meaning. and that would be:

"Who would have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth"

 

FYI, Timothy wasn't the author. Paul was ...

 

Aki said:

But you are doing exactly what you say should not be done. You are approaching this scripture you quoted with a pre-conceived belief : That God intends to save all men as in all mankind.
Whereas the immediate context says all men as in all manner of men (rulers, ruled, royalty, subjects, kings, paupers).

Also, as Pastor Larry pointed out, Timothy was the recipient of this letter, not Paul. Timothy was a protege of Paul, not his mentor.

 

Hello,

pinoybaptist said:

Good observation pinoybaptist! We all have presuppositions, but do they line up with Scripture, now thats the question!

 

oops. sorry! actually that's what i meant, that timothy was the student, and Paul the instructor, or at least in that line. it was just a wrong choice of term, or rather a need to learn more of the English language on my part.

i'm not much into arguing right now. but thanks for the correction.

 

alright. you accused me of not considering the context since i quoted only verse 4 and thought that it means what it says. actually in my mind the surface meaning of the verse does not contradict the immediate context. it can mean what it says without violating neighboring verses. thus, i saw that it means what it plainly says. your accusation at me not considering the context is not grouded by what you know how i studied the verse, but by your different interpretation of the context. there are single verses that can say what it means without violating...

but then it interested me to know that you saw a different context. you considered the immediate context and saw all manners of men instead of all men. considering the same, i saw the latter. in such a case, one of us was correct in consideration of the immediate context while the other one approached the chapter 2 with a presupposed belief in mind, thinking that what we are reading cannot contradict what we believe is already thought in other parts of the bible. one of us first studied and draw conclusion from the context alone, while the other distorted the context to adjust it to an established belief.

so who's who. it's a question of who was correct in the interpreation of the sentence construction and who twiested such construction and thus the context.

to get some grammatical help, i considered looking at a few commentaries available at e-sword. these are the interpretations of Barnes, Clarke, Gill and Henry, which are the only ones availble to me.

Albert Barnes: The word “will” cannot be taken here in the absolute sense, denoting a decree like that by which he willed the creation of the world, for then it would certainly be done. But the word is often used to denote a desire, wish, or what is in accordance with the nature of anyone...

This passage cannot mean, as many have supposed, that God wills that all kinds of people should be saved, or that some sinners of every rank and class may be saved, because:

(1) the natural and obvious interpretation of the language is opposed to such a sense. The language expresses the desire that “all men” should be saved, and we should not depart from the obvious sense of a passage unless necessity requires it.

Adam Clark: Because he wills the salvation of all men;

John Gill: The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a salvable state; or an offer of salvation to them; or a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which he has determined they shall have;...

but whom he wills they should be saved: hence by all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved, unless there are two contrary wills in God...

Matthew Henry: This one God will have all men to be saved; he desires not the death and destruction of any (Eze_33:11), but the welfare and salvation of all. Not that he has decreed the salvation of all, for then all men would be saved; but he has a good will to the salvation of all, and none perish but by their own fault,

i am not biased in having only Gill for your side, but these are all i've got. meanwhile, notice that Gill approached the term all men by supplying a pre-supposition of predestination,and not by the context itself. he got to say afterwards that "based on my introductory pre-supposition, these this is what the context should be". the other three, however, were stronger in clarifying the context first before interpreting the term "all", and were less in adjusting the context for a pre-supposed belief.

such is likely between you and me.

my mistake...

 

Gill not only compared the verse with the surrounding context, he also demonstrated how the interpretation of "all men" to be "every human who ever lived or will live" contradicts other scriptures both in the OT and NT. More important, his use of scripture is not limited to his personal interpretation of the word "all", but he draws from many other contexts to show that one cannot interpret "all" to be "every..etc" without causing contradictions with other scripture.

For example, Gill states, "for whilst he hides these things from the wise and prudent, he reveals them to babes: even so, Father, says Christ, for so it seemed good in thy sight (Matthew 11:25, 26)" This directly contradicts the interpretation that God wants "every human who ever lived or will live" to be saved.

In sharp contrast, the only so-called support I've seen here for interpreting it as "every human who ever lived or will live" is to simply quote another verse where one assumes the same meaning of the word "all" (such as 2 Peter 3:9). That is not scriptural support, it is simply a repetition of the same error without any scriptural support.

So whatever you may think or say about Gill's reasoning, it is not based solely on the presumption of predestination.

 

actually, for this particular verse, he did not.

actually, for this particular verse, that is the only approach he did. get context from farther portions of the scriptures and consider it heavier than the one immediately at hand.

and this is actually what led him and you to the same conclusion. in light of avoiding contraditions with other verses, consider other contexts, but not the one at hand.

taken, a verse cannot contradict another, but which interpretation of a verse must adjust deserves another discussion. meanwhile, the issue at hand is whether the context of I Tim 2 reveals what...

then read more.

then read his comment on that verse again.

 

You are incorrect. Read the excerpt again, only this time don't just look for scripture references in parentheses. Examples:

The exhortation of the apostle, in verse 1, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men... the phrase is therefore to be taken in a limited and restrained sense, for some only, as appears from verse 2, for kings and for all in authority; ... This sense is contended for, from the reason given in verse 5 ...