# 1 Tim 2:4,6 and Arminians



## God'sElectSaint

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (KJV)

I wanted to post this in it's full context. I realize this does not refute Reformed Theology. Here's my understanding of this in light of the doctrine of election: "All men" I believe here refers to all kids of men like kings, governors and civilians alike in the context of verses 1,2 which command us to pray for all men. Obviously we don't pray for every single individual on the planet. Is it proper to take the "all men" in v4 in this respect as well? Just want to make sure I am on the money for my own personal studies and to respond to the inevitable Arminian usage of this passage. Which Dr. James White calls one of the big 3, I think the other two are 2 Pet 3:9 as well as Matt 23:37


----------



## timfost

When you consider these verses, remember that there are differences of opinion as to the meaning even among the reformed. None of them are proof of Arminian doctrine, however. I would suggest not being dogmatic as to one particular interpretation as some interpret them in relation to God's revealed will.

In my opinion, Gresham Machen has a good approach to this verse. Theological Meditations: J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) on Ezekiel 33:11 and 1 Timothy 2:4 (I'm not endorsing this website, just found the article there when I searched on Google).

Calvin has a similar approach for 2 Pet. 3:9.

When conversing with an Arminian, I would encourage pointing him to an absolutely sovereign God and the comfort that it is to know that He's sovereign.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

timfost said:


> When you consider these verses, remember that there are differences of opinion as to the meaning even among the reformed. None of them are proof of Arminian doctrine, however. I would suggest not being dogmatic as to one particular interpretation as some interpret them in relation to God's revealed will.
> 
> In my opinion, Gresham Machen has a good approach to this verse. Theological Meditations: J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) on Ezekiel 33:11 and 1 Timothy 2:4 (I'm not endorsing this website, just found the article there when I searched on Google).
> 
> Calvin has a similar approach for 2 Pet. 3:9.
> 
> When conversing with an Arminian, I would encourage pointing him to an absolutely sovereign God and the comfort that it is to know that He's sovereign.



Thanks but that's kind of the reason I posted this was to get other interpretations.


----------



## KeithW

The best teaching I've ever heard on the word _all_ is by Jeff Pollard of Mount Zion Bible Church. He doesn't start with doctrine but with the English and Greek meanings of the word _all_, and then walks through both Old Testament and New Testament examples to consider which of the possible meanings is used in context. Considering it this way refutes the "all means all" crowd before you even start looking at particular Scriptures.

See these two sermons:
Doctrine of Grace: 'For God So Loved the World' 23 of 38
Doctrine of Grace: 'A Ransom For All' 24 of 38


----------



## God'sElectSaint

KeithW said:


> The best teaching I've ever heard on the word _all_ is by Jeff Pollard of Mount Zion Bible Church. He doesn't start with doctrine but with the English and Greek meanings of the word _all_, and then walks through both Old Testament and New Testament examples to consider which of the possible meanings is used in context. Considering it this way refutes the "all means all" crowd before you even start looking at particular Scriptures.
> 
> See these two sermons:
> Doctrine of Grace: 'For God So Loved the World' 23 of 38
> Doctrine of Grace: 'A Ransom For All' 24 of 38



Thanks Keith! I think know & foreknow follow that same logic. Obviously know has many meanings in the Bible. This was big for me to come to terms with reformed theology. Understanding that the foreknow in Romans 8:29 was an active verb in Greek and that it could not possibly mean he foresaw who would believe. MacArthur explained this well in one of his sermons. Approaching scripture from the reformed perspective makes it so much easier to understand. The Bible has truly come to life for me since I have come to terms with it. I don't have to tear Romans 9 out my bibles anymore!(joking here of course) But it's so clear to me now that the Bible knows nothing of this free will of man in salvation stuff. You know I think it was James White that explained that he thinks a big reason for the vast amount of Arminianism in America is because we are a Democracy and that if we had grown up under kings or dictators a Sovereign God might be easier to comprehend(of course he wasn't promoting Communism) But I think it makes a good point. I see now that I came originally to my Bible with the idea that man has free choice and free will. I really have sympathy for my Arminian brother & sisters because I do understand their thinking. But their is great comfort in the Doctrines of Grace to know God is in control of my destiny. Even our Lord rested on this knowledge quite often:
Luk 10:21 "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
That's awesome to me! Sorry I'm still a reformed newb and these things get me excited.


----------



## KeithW

Hi Edward,

I am glad you are learning the doctrines of Grace. Once I starting learning them it made my view of God higher and my view of man lower.

I was thinking more about how people have addressed the idea of man's free will from a historical perspective. When the Pelagian controversy arose, the first thing Augustine re-established was the fallen nature of man that we are born with, aka. original sin, man's inability to turn to God. When the semi-Pelagian controversy arose the first thing the Council of Orange re-established was original sin. When the Arminian controversy arose the first thing the Council of Dordt re-established was Total Depravity, aka original sin. They did not start by establishing Limited Atonement first, aka what does _all _mean.

Also, the word _all _in 1 Tim. 2:4 is Strong's G3956.


Thayer and Smith's Bible Dictionary said:


> individually
> .each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
> 
> collectively
> some of all types


That last meaning is something to think about.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

KeithW said:


> Hi Edward,
> 
> I am glad you are learning the doctrines of Grace. Once I starting learning them it made my view of God higher and my view of man lower.
> 
> I was thinking more about how people have addressed the idea of man's free will from a historical perspective. When the Pelagian controversy arose, the first thing Augustine re-established was the fallen nature of man that we are born with, aka. original sin, man's inability to turn to God. When the semi-Pelagian controversy arose the first thing the Council of Orange re-established was original sin. When the Arminian controversy arose the first thing the Council of Dordt re-established was Total Depravity, aka original sin. They did not start by establishing Limited Atonement first, aka what does _all _mean.
> 
> Also, the word _all _in 1 Tim. 2:4 is Strong's G3956.
> 
> 
> Thayer and Smith's Bible Dictionary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> individually
> .each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
> 
> collectively
> some of all types
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That last meaning is something to think about.
Click to expand...


That's SO true. Man's utter inability to seek God and absolute spiritual deadness is the major difference. It even changes our way of witnessing.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

*Regarding 1 Tim. 2:4*, that God will have all men to be saved, an example of the breadth that reformed theology has allowed on this verse:

*Francis Turretin* (d. 1687) allows that this verse refers to God's Revealed will, that is, that God is willing that all men should be saved, as other orthodox men of his day interpreted it, though he argues for an effectual-decree-for-the-elect interpretation:

Francis Turretin on 1 Tim. 2:4​


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Travis Fentiman said:


> *Regarding 1 Tim. 2:4*, that God will have all men to be saved, an example of the breadth that reformed theology has allowed on this verse:
> 
> *Francis Turretin* (d. 1687) allows that this verse refers to God's Revealed will, that is, that God is willing that all men should be saved, as other orthodox men of his day interpreted it, though he argues for an effectual-decree-for-the-elect interpretation:
> 
> Francis Turretin on 1 Tim. 2:4​



Hmm. I can't really see that in this verse right now.


----------



## MW

God'sElectSaint said:


> Sorry I'm still a reformed newb and these things get me excited.



Please don't be sorry, Edward. If these things don't get others excited it is likely the case that they need to learn the doctrines of grace all over again.

I am sorry that you have only been given access to the "exceptions" to the reformed faith. Be prepared to meet with this kind of thing on a regular basis. "All kinds of men" is the general reformed interpretation of the passage. You will find this clearly demonstrated at the following page (click on the link to the paper on 1 Tim. 2:4):

Welcome - Edinburgh Free Church Continuing

There is that which calls itself a sincere free offer of salvation which is a sincere free offer of nothing more than salvability. They turn the grace of God into a mere sentiment (a salvation in word, but not in deed). This is unscriptural and unreformed. The Lord saves. That is what Jesus means. He shall save His people from their sins. They wish God would wish all men saved. But salvation is an historical reality accomplished in Christ. There is no salvation apart from His saving work.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I'm still a reformed newb and these things get me excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't be sorry, Edward. If these things don't get others excited it is likely the case that they need to learn the doctrines of grace all over again.
> 
> I am sorry that you have only been given access to the "exceptions" to the reformed faith. Be prepared to meet with this kind of thing on a regular basis. "All kinds of men" is the general reformed interpretation of the passage. You will find this clearly demonstrated at the following page (click on the link to the paper on 1 Tim. 2:4):
> 
> Welcome - Edinburgh Free Church Continuing
> 
> There is that which calls itself a sincere free offer of salvation which is a sincere free offer of nothing more than salvability. They turn the grace of God into a mere sentiment (a salvation in word, but not in deed). This is unscriptural and unreformed. The Lord saves. That is what Jesus means. He shall save His people from their sins. They wish God would wish all men saved. But salvation is an historical reality accomplished in Christ. There is no salvation apart from His saving work.
Click to expand...


So my interpretation of all kinds of men (kings,rulers,jews,gentiles) is the common one of the reformed church is what you are saying Matthew?


----------



## MW

God'sElectSaint said:


> So my interpretation of all kinds of men (kings,rulers,jews,gentiles) is the common one of the reformed church is what you are saying Matthew?



Yes. The reformed faith gives full acknowledgment to the biblical revelation that salvation is actual and effectual because it is God's work. As all men are not saved it follows that the word "all" must be restricted to classes of men, which is precisely what the context demands.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> So my interpretation of all kinds of men (kings,rulers,jews,gentiles) is the common one of the reformed church is what you are saying Matthew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The reformed faith gives full acknowledgment to the biblical revelation that salvation is actual and effectual because it is God's work. As all men are not saved it follows that the word "all" must be restricted to classes of men, which is precisely what the context demands.
Click to expand...


That's the only way i could see it. I watched James White and he said the exact same thing.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

I still don't quite understand the God's Revealed Will interpretation? Can someone explain a little more ? Kinda like Matthew said I can only see it as all kinds of men but I am willing to try and understand the other interpretation.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

I know this does not address 2 Tim 2:4-6 directly but I believe it addresses similar logic. I often use this example to demonstrate the understanding of the use of "All men".

In Acts 9 when Paul is converted it says he was chosen to preach the gospel before Gentiles, Kings and the Children of Israel, then in Acts 22 when Paul is recounting his experience he uses "all men", therefore the passage in Acts 9 explain what is meant by "all men" in Acts 22, which is all "classes" of men.




> Acts 9:
> 
> 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
> 
> 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
> 
> 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name* before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel*:






> Acts 22:
> 
> 12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,
> 
> 13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
> 
> 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
> 
> 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto *all men* of what thou hast seen and heard.


----------



## Nicholas Perella

Travis Fentiman said:


> *Regarding 1 Tim. 2:4*, that God will have all men to be saved, an example of the breadth that reformed theology has allowed on this verse:
> 
> *Francis Turretin* (d. 1687) allows that this verse refers to God's Revealed will, that is, that God is willing that all men should be saved, as other orthodox men of his day interpreted it, though he argues for an effectual-decree-for-the-elect interpretation:
> 
> Francis Turretin on 1 Tim. 2:4​



A form of Amyraldianism? I know it is not the gospel. And I am not referring to Francis Turretin.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Nicholas,


No, Francis Turretin is not referring to Amyrauldians as 'other orthodox men' in that passage. Turretin's chapter is arguing against Amyrauldianism, and the 'other orthodox men' that Turretin refers to are those who held to limited atonement, etc. Feel free to read the larger chapter of Turretin's to see this.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Bill The Baptist said:


> If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.



That was my thinking Bill. The other interpretations posted confused me very much at first. Because I thought I was understanding it correctly as "all classes or kinds of men". I now believe that my interpretation is correct, it makes most sense. I know Tim said not to be dogmatic about this but I feel like I can be pretty firm and sure about the "all kids of men" interpretation. The other views like you said would seem to support Universalism or Arminianism.


----------



## Nicholas Perella

Bill The Baptist said:


> If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.



Good post

Praise God!


----------



## timfost

Bill The Baptist said:


> If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.



This is a little oversimplified... Calvin does a masterful job in Insitutes 3.24.17.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

timfost said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little oversimplified... Calvin does a masterful job in Insitutes 3.24.17.
Click to expand...


Okay Tim, I looked into this a little more. So the other interpretation is kinda that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, which clears things up for me a little. That is an interesting interpretation but at this moment(which of course could change) I feel that "all types of men" just fits the direct context much better and is a simpler exegeses of the passage at hand. But I now understand(I think)what you are getting at a little better.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

timfost said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little oversimplified... Calvin does a masterful job in Insitutes 3.24.17.
Click to expand...


If one holds to a Calvinist view of salvation whereby it is entirely an act of God, and if one also holds that God desires all to be saved, then the only thing that can logically follow is universalism. Since we rightly reject universalism, then the only two possible options are 1. Salvation is not entirely an act of God, or 2. God does not desire all men to be saved.


----------



## Toasty

God'sElectSaint said:


> 1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
> 1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
> 1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
> 1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
> 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
> 1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (KJV)
> 
> I wanted to post this in it's full context. I realize this does not refute Reformed Theology. Here's my understanding of this in light of the doctrine of election: "All men" I believe here refers to all kids of men like kings, governors and civilians alike in the context of verses 1,2 which command us to pray for all men. Obviously we don't pray for every single individual on the planet. Is it proper to take the "all men" in v4 in this respect as well? Just want to make sure I am on the money for my own personal studies and to respond to the inevitable Arminian usage of this passage. Which Dr. James White calls one of the big 3, I think the other two are 2 Pet 3:9 as well as Matt 23:37



The "all men" in verse 4 is referring to all kinds of people. Verses 1 and 2 speak of praying for all kinds of people including kings and for all who are in authority. Verse 6 is speaking about Christ making a ransom for all kinds of people.


----------



## Toasty

Travis Fentiman said:


> *Regarding 1 Tim. 2:4*, that God will have all men to be saved, an example of the breadth that reformed theology has allowed on this verse:
> 
> *Francis Turretin* (d. 1687) allows that this verse refers to God's Revealed will, that is, that God is willing that all men should be saved, as other orthodox men of his day interpreted it, though he argues for an effectual-decree-for-the-elect interpretation:
> 
> Francis Turretin on 1 Tim. 2:4​



Can this mean that God commands all people to believe in Jesus?


----------



## JimmyH

Election has been explained to me out of this passage in Romans 9 (NASB) ;

14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed [k]throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel [l]for honorable use and another [m]for common use? 22 [n]What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Bill The Baptist said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little oversimplified... Calvin does a masterful job in Insitutes 3.24.17.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one holds to a Calvinist view of salvation whereby it is entirely an act of God, and if one also holds that God desires all to be saved, then the only thing that can logically follow is universalism. Since we rightly reject universalism, then the only two possible options are 1. Salvation is not entirely an act of God, or 2. God does not desire all men to be saved.
Click to expand...


That's what I find as well Bill. I think some folks might be looking too deep into this rather than taking it at face value. For instance a verse like this "Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Another example would be "Rom 5:18 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." I think it's clear "all men" does not mean every single individual in the world. Especially looking at the Romans 5:18 we see "all men" but if look back at verse 15 we see Paul say "hath abounded unto many_._" So these terms seem to be quite often interchangeable. I think it would be inconsistent to take 1 Tim 2:4's "all men" as every single individual, and then not take the other two verses "all men" I mentioned the same way. I just feel "all kinds of men" is a consistent reformed exegeses of this passage. Though Calvin and some others may disagree or see this in a different light that doesn't mean that they were immune of possibly performing eisegesis rather than exegesis in this particular instance.

Sidenote- When talking about condemnation and original sin, I think it's reasonable to accept "all men" as every single man in Romans 5:18 while still being consistent and interpreting "all men" as "all kinds of men" concerning the free gift of life. Though maybe it could just simply be hyperbole in Roman 5:18?


----------



## God'sElectSaint

"but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into everlasting punishment: rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1Ti_2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved; and particularly the Gentiles may be designed, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature; whom God would have saved, as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, were to be prayed for as well as Jewish ones."- John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible


----------



## PaulMc

God'sElectSaint said:


> I still don't quite understand the God's Revealed Will interpretation? Can someone explain a little more ? Kinda like Matthew said I can only see it as all kinds of men but I am willing to try and understand the other interpretation.



Although John Owen disagrees that the revealed will is that which is intended in this passage, he discusses what it would mean if it _were_ the will referred to here:

'The will of God is usually distinguished into his will intending and his will commanding', so that if the 'will' here indicated the "voluntate signi" (which Owen denies anyway), then the verse is 'the same with that of the apostle in another place, "God commandeth all men everywhere to repent."' 

In denying that this verse refers to all men indiscriminately, he also says (p.346) that 'All shall be saved whom God would have to be saved; this we dare not deny, for "who hath resisted his will?" Seeing, then, it is most certain that all shall not be saved (for some shall stand on the left hand), it cannot be that the universality of men should be intended in this place.'

Suffice to say that Owen took 'all' here to refer to all kinds of men, as others in this thread have already made clear.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> No, Francis Turretin is not referring to Amyrauldians as 'other orthodox men' in that passage. Turretin's chapter is arguing against Amyrauldianism, and the 'other orthodox men' that Turretin refers to are those who held to limited atonement, etc. Feel free to read the larger chapter of Turretin's to see this.



I cannot find a reference to "other orthodox men" in this section of Turretin. "They" refers to "some" who are left unidentified in this section. As he continues his discussion of this passage Turretin specifically refers to "the authors of this new method" (p. 410). He particularly frees Calvin from the interpretation of the new methodists by appeal to Calvin's explanation of this passage.


----------



## timfost

Great conversation, Edward!

You are in good company with your interpretation, as it is also Calvin's. 

A word of caution, though. Be very careful with John Gill. Many believe that he was a hyper-Calvinist. Peter Toon makes a very good case for this. Regardless, Gill followed in the Hussey vein and promoted Tobias Crisp, most notably in the doctrine of eternal justification. If you're not familiar with this doctrine, it is the belief that the elect are not justified by the means of faith but from eternity past. According to him, faith is only a recognition of your justification. This doctrine has very detrimental effects on his theology.

In regards to 1 Tim. 2:4, what gives me pause as to only interpreting as classes of men is that we are called to make supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanks for all men. Certainly the context very readily agrees to interpreting classes of people, but we pray for people in all of these classes individually as well as collectively. I'm not sure if the classes referenced in this is to the exclusion of individuals.

Calvin on reconciling the concept of willing repentance unto salvation:

"Now, if the genuine meaning of the prophet is inquired into, it will be found that he only means to give the hope of pardon to them who repent. The sum is, that God is undoubtedly ready to pardon whenever the sinner turns. Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far as he wills repentance. But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though the external word only renders, those who hear its and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself." (Institutes 3.24.15)


----------



## Peairtach

God'sElectSaint said:


> KeithW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best teaching I've ever heard on the word _all_ is by Jeff Pollard of Mount Zion Bible Church. He doesn't start with doctrine but with the English and Greek meanings of the word _all_, and then walks through both Old Testament and New Testament examples to consider which of the possible meanings is used in context. Considering it this way refutes the "all means all" crowd before you even start looking at particular Scriptures.
> 
> See these two sermons:
> Doctrine of Grace: 'For God So Loved the World' 23 of 38
> Doctrine of Grace: 'A Ransom For All' 24 of 38
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Keith! I think know & foreknow follow that same logic. Obviously know has many meanings in the Bible. This was big for me to come to terms with reformed theology. Understanding that the foreknow in Romans 8:29 was an active verb in Greek and that it could not possibly mean he foresaw who would believe. MacArthur explained this well in one of his sermons. Approaching scripture from the reformed perspective makes it so much easier to understand. The Bible has truly come to life for me since I have come to terms with it. I don't have to tear Romans 9 out my bibles anymore!(joking here of course) But it's so clear to me now that the Bible knows nothing of this free will of man in salvation stuff. You know I think it was James White that explained that he thinks a big reason for the vast amount of Arminianism in America is because we are a Democracy and that if we had grown up under kings or dictators a Sovereign God might be easier to comprehend(of course he wasn't promoting Communism) But I think it makes a good point. I see now that I came originally to my Bible with the idea that man has free choice and free will. I really have sympathy for my Arminian brother & sisters because I do understand their thinking. But their is great comfort in the Doctrines of Grace to know God is in control of my destiny. Even our Lord rested on this knowledge quite often:
> Luk 10:21 "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
> That's awesome to me! Sorry I'm still a reformed newb and these things get me excited.
Click to expand...


Apart from that, the interpretation of "foreknew" as "foresaw" begs the question, that if God foresaw who was going to believe, their believing was determined beforehand, but if not by God, by what? Fate? Chance?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timfost

Amen! In the Arminian scheme, it would have to read "for what He foreknew" and not "for whom..." The former imposed a very English usage of knowledge, not the Greek.


----------



## TylerRay

MW said:


> Travis Fentiman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Francis Turretin is not referring to Amyrauldians as 'other orthodox men' in that passage. Turretin's chapter is arguing against Amyrauldianism, and the 'other orthodox men' that Turretin refers to are those who held to limited atonement, etc. Feel free to read the larger chapter of Turretin's to see this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot find a reference to "other orthodox men" in this section of Turretin. "They" refers to "some" who are left unidentified in this section. As he continues his discussion of this passage Turretin specifically refers to "the authors of this new method" (p. 410). He particularly frees Calvin from the interpretation of the new methodists by appeal to Calvin's explanation of this passage.
Click to expand...


Travis,

Rev. Winzer is correct:


> Because the authors of this new method are accustomed frequently to appeal to Calvin (as if they taught nothing but what was already formerly delivered by him), it pleases us to refer here to the words of that illustrious man on this passage, in which ... they place the principle defense of their cause ... For so far from agreeing with them, he expressly denies that the apostle treats here of individual men and teaches that we must simply understand "that neither any people nor order of the world is excluded from salvation, since God wills the gospel to be proposed to all without exception."



Turretin goes on to approve of Calvin's "consider[ing] those who think differently to be disturbers and obstinate:"


> How can the dictum of these disturbers hold good--God wills all men (i. e., each individual) to be saved? If he wills this now he also willed it always; if he willed it always, what becomes of that which the apostle adds, that he wills all to come to the knowledge of the truth?



Although the well-meant offer is not a settled issue in our own denomination or in other orthodox Reformed denominations, your construction of Turretin paints his position in a much more charitable light than the context allows (i. e., that he is charitable toward those holding to the well-meant offer). His point, rather, seems to be to rid his audience of question about such a view, and to censure (albeit mildly) those who teach that view.


----------



## Cymro

You may be interested in Dr Jonathan Moore's quotation from Perkins treatment of 1Tim2:4.
Perkins assembles an extensive list of reasons amounting to three double column folio pages. Firstly,"the place is not to 
be understood of all the posteritie of Adam, but properly of those who live in the last age of the world." Secondly, Perkins
Sees a universality amongst the elect,"God wills that all men to be saved, that is to say,of those that are saved." Thirdly.
Perkins consciously follows the Augustinian interpretation of this passage, and sees the text as meaning,"God will not have
everyone of every kind, but the kinds of everyone to bee saved; that is to say, of every state and condition some." Fourthly, we are to understand the verse judicially in terms of the visible church. The Apostle " speaketh in this place
according to the charitable judgment of Christians : and not according to the judgment of secret and infallible certaintie."
At this point Perkins challenged the use of the distinction between God's "precedent and consequent will." Rather than 
delighting at this point in scholastic subtleties as "a wishing will,"Perkins simply reasoned that, "whatsoever anyone desireth and earnestly willeth, that will he bring to passe, unless he bee hindered." Yet the divine will never "stands
doubtful" and always is accomplished even when not all are saved. Fifthly, it is clear that God does not will the blessedness
of all angels without exception, so why should it be so concerning men? Sixthly,"if God will that all men,as they are men be saved: in like manner he will, that all sinners, as they are sinners, bee damned." Seventhly,Perkins argues for the absoluteness of God's antecedent will, on the basis of Romans9:19, and argues in an Augustinian manner that God's antecedent will, and not any consequent will, is known "by the event." Eigthly, Perkins argues that because the text added"and to come to the knowledge of the truth," then faith cannot be a "condition" upon which the divine will in this text 
hangs. Lastly, Perkins quoted Augustine's exegesis of this text to the effect that the text "is to be understood of them which are actually saved because all men which are saved, are saved by the will of God."


----------



## Travis Fentiman

TylerRay said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Travis Fentiman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Francis Turretin is not referring to Amyrauldians as 'other orthodox men' in that passage. Turretin's chapter is arguing against Amyrauldianism, and the 'other orthodox men' that Turretin refers to are those who held to limited atonement, etc. Feel free to read the larger chapter of Turretin's to see this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot find a reference to "other orthodox men" in this section of Turretin. "They" refers to "some" who are left unidentified in this section. As he continues his discussion of this passage Turretin specifically refers to "the authors of this new method" (p. 410). He particularly frees Calvin from the interpretation of the new methodists by appeal to Calvin's explanation of this passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Travis,
> 
> Rev. Winzer is correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the authors of this new method are accustomed frequently to appeal to Calvin (as if they taught nothing but what was already formerly delivered by him), it pleases us to refer here to the words of that illustrious man on this passage, in which ... they place the principle defense of their cause ... For so far from agreeing with them, he expressly denies that the apostle treats here of individual men and teaches that we must simply understand "that neither any people nor order of the world is excluded from salvation, since God wills the gospel to be proposed to all without exception."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turretin goes on to approve of Calvin's "consider[ing] those who think differently to be disturbers and obstinate:"
> 
> 
> 
> How can the dictum of these disturbers hold good--God wills all men (i. e., each individual) to be saved? If he wills this now he also willed it always; if he willed it always, what becomes of that which the apostle adds, that he wills all to come to the knowledge of the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although the well-meant offer is not a settled issue in our own denomination or in other orthodox Reformed denominations, your construction of Turretin paints his position in a much more charitable light than the context allows (i. e., that he is charitable toward those holding to the well-meant offer). His point, rather, seems to be to rid his audience of question about such a view, and to censure (albeit mildly) those who teach that view.
Click to expand...



Thank you both Tyler Ray and Matthew Winzer. I will look at the passage in Turretin again, and change my editorial comments on that webpage if I need to.


----------



## timfost

Edward,

You said: "Sidenote- When talking about condemnation and original sin, I think it's reasonable to accept "all men" as every single man in Romans 5:18 while still being consistent and interpreting "all men" as "all kinds of men" concerning the free gift of life. Though maybe it could just simply be hyperbole in Roman 5:18?"

I would say that this is not hyperbole at all. The context is federal headship. All that Adam represented have original sin (humanity). All that Christ represented are justified (the elect). The all is not hyperbole but encompasses all that are represented by their federal head.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

timfost said:


> Edward,
> 
> You said: "Sidenote- When talking about condemnation and original sin, I think it's reasonable to accept "all men" as every single man in Romans 5:18 while still being consistent and interpreting "all men" as "all kinds of men" concerning the free gift of life. Though maybe it could just simply be hyperbole in Roman 5:18?"
> 
> I would say that this is not hyperbole at all. The context is federal headship. All that Adam represented have original sin (humanity). All that Christ represented are justified (the elect). The all is not hyperbole but encompasses all that are represented by their federal head.



Thanks I knew it was headship but that clears that up. I see what you are saying on the other verse 1 Tim 2:4 as well.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

MW said:


> Travis Fentiman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Francis Turretin is not referring to Amyrauldians as 'other orthodox men' in that passage. Turretin's chapter is arguing against Amyrauldianism, and the 'other orthodox men' that Turretin refers to are those who held to limited atonement, etc. Feel free to read the larger chapter of Turretin's to see this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot find a reference to "other orthodox men" in this section of Turretin. "They" refers to "some" who are left unidentified in this section. As he continues his discussion of this passage Turretin specifically refers to "the authors of this new method" (p. 410). He particularly frees Calvin from the interpretation of the new methodists by appeal to Calvin's explanation of this passage.
Click to expand...




Matthew and Tyler,


I still do believe that my interpretation of Turretin is correct, that he is allowing (and implicitly endorsing) that 1 Tim. 2:4 can be understood as the Revealed Will.

- In stating the question at the beginning of the chapter on p. 397, section VIII, Turretin says that the issue with Amyrauldians is not the revealed will, but a general conditional decree of intention (see section X on the same page) that Turretin classifies under the will of decree.

- Turretin allows for a Revealed Will interpretation of Eze. 33:11 (p. 408) and of 2 Pet. 2:9 in section XXXIX (p. 412)

- The very language and grammar of the passage in question on 1 Tim. 2:4 (p. 408) is against 'universal grace' in the Amyrauldian sense, but clearly allows for a Revealed will interpretation.

- The authors of the new method are the Amyrauldians, who Turretin says do not follow Calvin (though they claim to), but are really saying something new.

- The quote that Tyler quoted about Turretin refuting the interpretation of God willing all men, each individual, to be saved is referring to the Amyrauldian scheme.


The reason why Turretin can allow for a Revealed Will interpretation of these Bible passages is because on his view the Revealed Will only lays an obligation on man and does not intend him to be saved. Thus it does not hurt his system if these passages refer to the Revealed Will.

Matthew is correct that the 'they' and 'some' of the passage in question on 1 Tim. 2:4 (p. 408) are left unidentified. However, given his approval of their view, it is unlikely that they were any but orthodox, reformed divines (which is why I inserted the editorial comments I did, for better clarity).

Just for the record, I have never claimed that Turretin held to the 'Well meant offer' (as elucidated by John Murray), and he definitely would have been against it. Though I do think his view can be categorized as a 'Sincere offer'. He holds to an offer, and it is a real and sincere offer, or to use Turretin's phrase, a 'serious' offer.

While we do not know how the approved unidentified men who understood 1 Tim. 2:4 as the Revealed Will defined the Revealed Will, it should not be assumed that they would have defined it exactly in the same way that Turretin did. There were tons of reformed divines in his day that clearly affirmed that the Revealed Will had purpose in it.


Tyler, it is good to 'meet' you. Please give my friendly greetings to the saints in Atlanta, who are very dear to myself and my family. I pray for you all the first Monday of every month, which is the day of prayer that the office bearers of the FCC regularly keep for our presbytery. It will be a pleasure to meet you in person hopefully sooner than later, Lord willing.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Cymro said:


> You may be interested in Dr Jonathan Moore's quotation from Perkins treatment of 1Tim2:4.
> Perkins assembles an extensive list of reasons amounting to three double column folio pages. Firstly,"the place is not to
> be understood of all the posteritie of Adam, but properly of those who live in the last age of the world." Secondly, Perkins
> Sees a universality amongst the elect,"God wills that all men to be saved, that is to say,of those that are saved." Thirdly.
> Perkins consciously follows the Augustinian interpretation of this passage, and sees the text as meaning,"God will not have
> everyone of every kind, but the kinds of everyone to bee saved; that is to say, of every state and condition some." Fourthly, we are to understand the verse judicially in terms of the visible church. The Apostle " speaketh in this place
> according to the charitable judgment of Christians : and not according to the judgment of secret and infallible certaintie."
> At this point Perkins challenged the use of the distinction between God's "precedent and consequent will." Rather than
> delighting at this point in scholastic subtleties as "a wishing will,"Perkins simply reasoned that, "whatsoever anyone desireth and earnestly willeth, that will he bring to passe, unless he bee hindered." Yet the divine will never "stands
> doubtful" and always is accomplished even when not all are saved. Fifthly, it is clear that God does not will the blessedness
> of all angels without exception, so why should it be so concerning men? Sixthly,"if God will that all men,as they are men be saved: in like manner he will, that all sinners, as they are sinners, bee damned." Seventhly,Perkins argues for the absoluteness of God's antecedent will, on the basis of Romans9:19, and argues in an Augustinian manner that God's antecedent will, and not any consequent will, is known "by the event." Eigthly, Perkins argues that because the text added"and to come to the knowledge of the truth," then faith cannot be a "condition" upon which the divine will in this text
> hangs. Lastly, Perkins quoted Augustine's exegesis of this text to the effect that the text "is to be understood of them which are actually saved because all men which are saved, are saved by the will of God."



Thanks Pastor O'Neil this was excellent!


----------



## TylerRay

Travis Fentiman said:


> Tyler, it is good to 'meet' you. Please give my friendly greetings to the saints in Atlanta, who are very dear to myself and my family. I pray for you all the first Monday of every month, which is the day of prayer that the office bearers of the FCC regularly keep for our presbytery. It will be a pleasure to meet you in person hopefully sooner than later, Lord willing.



Likewise, dear brother. Thanks for being charitable enough to reexamine the passage in Turretin.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross

Edward,

As you noted, the "all kinds of men" interpretation is well attested and supported exegetically and linguistically in the text. 

P.S. You may want to check your signature.


----------



## MW

Travis Fentiman said:


> - In stating the question at the beginning of the chapter on p. 397, section VIII, Turretin says that the issue with Amyrauldians is not the revealed will, but a general conditional decree of intention (see section X on the same page) that Turretin classifies under the will of decree.



On p. 397 he unequivocally states that an intrinsic conditional will is one and the same with a conditional decree. His words: "since no act of proper and intrinsic will in God concerning the event of anything can be granted (which does not imply a decree), whoever recognises a conditional will in God must necessarily admit a conditional decree in him."

There was no difference for Turretin. He regarded the idea of an ineffectual will in God as "absurd," p. 401.

Turretin refuted the "ineffectual will" exegesis of 1 Tim. 2, Ezek. 33, and 2 Pet. 3. He not only put the Amyraldian arguments to flight; he destroyed their base of operation.


----------



## TylerRay

I'm currently reading John MacLeod's Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History. I read just a moment ago that in France Amyraldianism was known as the New Method. Travis is correct in saying that the New Method being refuted in pp 410-411 is the position of the Amyraldians. 

What I am uncertain of is whether the folks he mentions on 408 at holding an alternate interpretation of the I Tim 2:4-6 are in fact the Amyraldians themselves.

To put it another way, I don't know whether his mentioning another interpretation on 408 is an aside, noting another plausible interpretation; or a part of a his refutation of Amyraldianism, in taking their interpretation to task.


----------



## MW

TylerRay said:


> To put it another way, I don't know whether his mentioning another interpretation on 408 is an aside, noting another plausible interpretation; or a part of a his refutation of Amyraldianism, in taking their interpretation to task.



To put it in historical context, the Synods of France required Amyraut and Testard to cease using terms like conditional decree. Some reverted to conditional will. Turretin's polemic inclusively aims at both. His arguments are equally fitted to refute the ideas included in both terms. His treatment of 1 Tim. 2 is decisively against the idea of a conditional will. The idea of using Turretin to give validity to a conditional will interpretation is preposterous. One has to ignore the bulk of his discussion on this question.


----------

