# 1 Timothy 2:4 Understanding "ALL"



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

This text is often used, wrongly, to understand that ALL will eventually be saved. Does anyone have any good resources, other than what I already have from _Monergism_ and it's Online Commentaries?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 30, 2007)

There's a little 35-page booklet I have (possibly from Gospel Mission -- Montana?) titled, _Calvin v. Hyper-Spurgeonism_, which has a sermon by Calvin in it, "All Men". They state it can be found in "The 1579 edition of John Calvin's Sermons on Timothy and Titus [which were] published in facsimile format [sixteenth century typeface] by The Banner of Truth Trust", although the stand-alone version is in modern typeface. It also contains a couple of essays, plus more testimonies from Calvin and one from Augustine.

It was published in 1997 by Berith Publications, 6 Orchard Road, LEWES, E. Sussex, England [no ISBN].

Steve


----------



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

But not online anywhere Right Steve?

Thanks for the info by the way.

 




Jerusalem Blade said:


> There's a little 35-page booklet I have (possibly from Gospel Mission -- Montana?) titled, _Calvin v. Hyper-Spurgeonism_, which has a sermon by Calvin in it, "All Men". They state it can be found in "The 1579 edition of John Calvin's Sermons on Timothy and Titus [which were] published in facsimile format [sixteenth century typeface] by The Banner of Truth Trust", although the stand-alone version is in modern typeface. It also contains a couple of essays, plus more testimonies from Calvin and one from Augustine.
> 
> It was published in 1997 by Berith Publications, 6 Orchard Road, LEWES, E. Sussex, England [no ISBN].
> 
> Steve


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 30, 2007)

The historical understanding has been that the "all" is to be understood as "all kinds" even the kings and rulers that are to be prayed for. These kings would have been thought to be enemies thus not possibly in per view of God's salvation.


----------



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

^
Absolutely


----------



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 30, 2007)

caddy said:


> http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm



Do we agree with spuregeon?


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 30, 2007)

caddy said:


> This text is often used, wrongly, to understand that ALL will eventually be saved. Does anyone have any good resources, other than what I already have from _Monergism_ and it's Online Commentaries?



Have you this?


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 30, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> Do we agree with spuregeon?



I do not.


----------



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

I just finished reading about 3/4 of the Spurgeon piece. Yes, I agree with it, but it does NOT seem to point out the context of "ALL" in his piece. In other words, he is _weak_ on what the text is saying.



A5pointer said:


> Do we agree with spuregeon?


----------



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

Thanks AV1611. Reading it now.



AV1611 said:


> Have you this?


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 30, 2007)

caddy said:


> Thanks AV1611. Reading it now.



You will probably already have John Owen but just in case:

John Owen teaches “That all or all men do not always comprehend all and every man that were, are, or shall be, may be made apparent by near five hundred instances from the Scripture. Taking, then, all and all men distributively, for some of all sorts, we grant the whole; taking them collectively, for all of all sorts, we deny the minor, — namely, that God will have them all to be saved. To make our denial of this appear to be an evident truth, and agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost in this place, two things must be considered:— 1. What is that will of God here mentioned, whereby he willeth all to be saved. 2. Who are the all of whom the apostle is in this place treating.
1. The will of God is usually distinguished into his will intending and his will commanding; or rather, that word is used in reference unto God in this twofold notion, — (1.) For his purpose, what he will do; (2.) For his approbation of what we do, with his command thereof. Let now our opposers take their option in whether signification the will of God shall be here understood, or how he willeth the salvation of all.

First, If they say he doth it “voluntate signi,” with his will commanding, requiring, approving, then the sense of the words is this:— “God commandeth all men to use the means whereby they may obtain the end, or salvation, the performance whereof is acceptable to God in any or all;” and so it is the same with that of the apostle in another place, “God commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” Now, if this be the way whereby God willeth the salvation of all here mentioned, then certainly those all can possibly be no more than to whom he granteth and revealeth the means of grace; which are indeed a great many, but yet not the one hundredth part of the posterity of Adam. Besides, taking God’s willing the salvation of men in this sense, we deny the sequel of the first proposition, — namely, that Christ died for as many as God thus willeth should be saved. The foundation of God’s command unto men to use the means granted them is not Christ’s dying for them in particular, but the connection which himself, by his decree, hath fixed between these two things, faith and salvation; the death of Christ being abundantly sufficient for the holding out of that connection unto all, there being enough in it to save all believers.

Secondly, If the will of God be taken for his efficacious will, the will of his purpose and good pleasure (as truly to me it seems exceedingly evident that that is here intended, because the will of God is made the ground and bottom of our supplications; as if in these our prayers we should say only, “Thy will be done,” — which is to have them all to be saved: now, we have a promise to receive of God “whatsoever we ask according to his will,” 1 John iii. 22, v. 14; and therefore this will of God, which is here proposed as the ground of our prayers, must needs be his effectual or rather efficacious will, which is always accomplished); — if it be, I say, thus taken, then certainly it must be fulfilled, and all those saved whom he would have saved; for whatsoever God can do and will do, that shall certainly come to pass and be effected. That God can save all (not considering his decree) none doubts; and that he will save all it is here affirmed: therefore, if these all here be all and every one, all and every one shall certainly be saved. “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die.” “Who hath resisted God’s will?” Rom. ix. 19. “He hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” Ps. cxv. 3. “He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth,” Dan. iv. 35. If all, then, here be to be understood of all men universally, one of these two things must of necessity follow:— either that God faileth of his purpose and intention, or else that all men universally shall be saved; which puts us upon the second thing considerable in the words, namely, who are meant by all men in this place.

2. By all men the apostle here intendeth all sorts of men indefinitely living under the gospel, or in these latter times, under the enlarged dispensation of the means of grace…The scope of the apostle, treating of the amplitude, enlargement, and extent of grace, in the outward administration thereof, under the gospel, will not suffer it to be denied. This he lays down as a foundation of our praying for all, — because the means of grace and the habitation of the church is now no longer confined to the narrow bounds of one nation, but promiscuously and indefinitely extended unto all people, tongues, and languages; and to all sorts of men amongst them, high and low, rich and poor, one with another. We say, then, that by the words all men are here intended only of all sorts of men, suitable to the purpose of the apostle, which was to show that all external difference between the sons of men is now taken away…” 

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.x.iv.html


----------



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

Yes, but thanks for posting this portion online. That's exactly what I need. No need to retype now!  



AV1611 said:


> You will probably already have John Owen but just in case:
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.x.iv.html


----------



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

*The Christian’s Reasonable Service*

*The Christian’s Reasonable Service*
*Wilhelmus à Brakel*​http://www.puritanboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=264077#_ftn1http://www.puritanboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=264077#_ftnref1a Brakel, W. 1992; Published in electronic form by Christian Classics Foundation, 1996. _The Christian's reasonable service, Volumes 1 and 2 : In which Divine truths concerning the covenant of grace are expounded, defended against opposing parties, and their practice advocated as well as The administration of this covenant in the Old and New Testaments_ (electronic ed. of the first publication in the English language, based on the 3rd edition of the original Dutch work.). Soli Deo Gloria Publications: Morgan PA




_Objection #3:_ “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all” ( Rom. 11:32 ); “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” ( Rom. 5:18 ); “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” ( 1 Cor. 15:22 ); “And that He died for all . . .” ( 2 Cor. 5:15 ); “Who will have all men to be saved.. . . Who gave Himself a ransom for all . . .” ( 1 Tim. 2:4 , 6 ); “. . . not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” ( 2 Pet. 3:9 ).
_Answer:_ Our response to each of these texts can be found in chapter 22. The word “all” does not refer to all men who have existed, do exist, and will exist, but rather to all those who are under discussion in each individual text. Romans 5:18 speaks of all those who are in Christ, who will be the recipients of justification unto life. Romans 11:32 refers to the rejection and the restoration or repentance of the Jewish nation. 1 Corinthians 15:22 speaks of all who will be made alive in Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:15 makes mention of all believers who have died to sin and are partakers of spiritual life. In 1 Timothy 2:4–6 , the reference is to all sorts of men, which is evident in verse 2 —all sorts of men rather than all men will come to the knowledge of the truth. Whatever God has decreed shall certainly come to pass and whatever does not occur is not according to the will of God’s decree. Thus, all men are not saved, but only those in whose stead Christ has been given as a ransom. 2 Peter 3:9 refers to the elect who will come to repentance and who must first be gathered in before the world perishes. It also makes mention of the command and the declaration of the gospel which commands everyone who hears it to repent, speaking of both God’s pleasure and displeasure relative to repentance or the lack of it.​http://www.puritanboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=264077#_ftn1http://www.puritanboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=264077#_ftnref1a Brakel, W. 1992; Published in electronic form by Christian Classics Foundation, 1996. _The Christian's reasonable service, Volumes 1 and 2 : In which Divine truths concerning the covenant of grace are expounded, defended against opposing parties, and their practice advocated as well as The administration of this covenant in the Old and New Testaments_ (electronic ed. of the first publication in the English language, based on the 3rd edition of the original Dutch work.). Soli Deo Gloria Publications: Morgan PA


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 30, 2007)

You might want to check out this thread.

Here are a few additional resources:

Loraine Boettner, _The Reformed Faith_, has a section on the "Universalistic Passages," including 1 Tim. 2.4.

Gary D. Long, An Exegetical Study of 1Timothy 2:4 (A Doctrinal Study on the Extent of the Atonement).

Mitch Cervinka, _An Exposition of 1 Timothy 2:3-4_.

Arthur Dent, _The Plain Man's Pathway to Heaven_, p. 210:



> Asunetus: Yea, but the scripture saith, "God will have all men saved." [1 Tim 2:4]
> 
> Theologus: That is not meant of every particular man, but of all sorts some. Some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, some high, some low, etc.



John Brown of Haddington, _Systematic Theology_, Book V, Chap. 1, p. 341: 



> Objection I. "The call of the gospel reaches all men, Titus 2:11; 1 Tim 2:4; Col 1:6; Mark 16:15; Luke 2:10." Answer. It is extended to men of all sorts, Jews and Gentiles, and of all ranks, poor or rich, but not to every particular person, Rev 5:9; Rev 7:9. A warrant to preach it every where will not prove that it is every where preached.



Thomas Manton, _Exposition of Isaiah 53:4_, Works of Thomas Manton, Vol. 3, p. 265:



> But how shall I look upon this as a faithful saying, that Christ came to die for my sins? Is not that to believe a lie, suppose I be a reprobate?
> 
> Ans. [1.] The word of God excludeth none but those that exclude themselves. We are to go to God's revealed will; that we are bound to believe, though in his secret will it should not be truth. As Abraham was bound to believe, after God's command, that Isaac should die under his hand, though God had otherwise purposed; for you know it is said, 1 Tim 2:4, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." God showeth them that the promulgation of the gospel is general.



Christopher Ness, _An Antiodote to Arminianism_:



> Objection 2. The words “all” and “every,” often used in Scripture, must be taken universally.
> 
> Answer:
> 1. “All” and “every” must not be taken for a universal affirmative collectively, and for every man individually, in the common quoted scriptures; but distributively, as in Mt 9:35, where we are told that Christ went about healing every sickness and every disease among the people: that is, any and every kind of disease, for Christ healed not every disease individually. Also in Col 1:28, where “every” is taken distributively three times over, and must be restricted to those to whom Paul preached.
> ...


----------



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

^
Excellent ! I knew if you saw this you'd come through with something Andrew. Thanks Man....!


----------



## Herald (Apr 30, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> Do we agree with spuregeon?



I agree with Spurgeon on this passage. To quote an oft used colloquialism, "It is what it is."


----------



## Herald (Apr 30, 2007)

> The prophet David saith, “All men are liars;” take the word strictly, and he must be a liar that saith so.



This statement fails to differentiate between the act of lying and being a liar by nature. Paul writes:

*Romans 3:4* 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, And mightest prevail when Thou art judged." 

One can be a liar by nature and still be able to utter a truthful statement. It is similar to total depravity. Man is depraved, but that does not mean he always acts in the extreme of his depravity.


----------



## caddy (Apr 30, 2007)

Thanks Bill

Good point. 



BaptistInCrisis said:


> This statement fails to differentiate between the act of lying and being a liar by nature. Paul writes:
> 
> *Romans 3:4* 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, And mightest prevail when Thou art judged."
> 
> One can be a liar by nature and still be able to utter a truthful statement. It is similar to total depravity. Man is depraved, but that does not mean he always acts in the extreme of his depravity.


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 30, 2007)

There are plenty of examples we cerainly don't believe ALL will be raised in Christ as Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 2, 2007)

caddy said:


> ^
> Excellent ! I knew if you saw this you'd come through with something Andrew. Thanks Man....!



You're welcome, brother!



BaptistInCrisis said:


> This statement fails to differentiate between the act of lying and being a liar by nature. Paul writes:
> 
> *Romans 3:4* 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, And mightest prevail when Thou art judged."
> 
> One can be a liar by nature and still be able to utter a truthful statement. It is similar to total depravity. Man is depraved, but that does not mean he always acts in the extreme of his depravity.



I think that is why Ness used the phrase "take the word strictly."

Another resource:

William Lyford, _The Instructed Christian_, pp. 271-272:



> Obj. 2. 1 Tim. ii.4-6, "Who will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth; for there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all."
> 
> Ans. By _all_ here cannot be meant all the men that ever were, or shall be, in the world; seeing the text is express that "God in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways," not regarding or giving them means to come to the knowledge of the truth, Acts. xiv.16, as now he doth "command all men every where to repent," Acts xvii.30. Cain, Judas, the beast, and the false prophet, and those scoffers, that were ordained of old to condemnation; can we reasonably think that God would have them to be saved? By _all_, therefore, must be meant, first, all sorts of men, kings, subjects, bond and free of every nation under heaven, according to Rev. v.9, "Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue, and people and nation." He does not say, the whole kindred, and tongue, and nation, but some out of every sort.
> 
> Again, _all_, of all nations that shall believe on his name, so is _all_ expounded and limited: thus "Abraham" is said to be "the father of us all," Rom. iv.16, that is, of all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, John iii.16; Rom. iii.22. Christ's church is a world of believers, God will have them all come to the knowledge of the truth; the gospel teaches us, that "for there is one God, and one Mediator," and one ransom paid for all, namely, whereas in times past, several nations had several gods and mediators, and proposed to themselves several ways of salvation; says the apostle, This is not truth, for there is one God, and one Mediator, and one ransomer of all. There are not several ways and ransoms, nor several Mediators, by which men may be saved, but one for all men, and all men must be reconciled to God by his death and intercession.


----------



## caddy (May 2, 2007)

Which leads me to my next question concerning those who have NEVER heard the Gospel Andrew. What threads can you provide for me as a resource? My Brother and I have been exchanging extremely long emails. The debate seems to be esclating, at least on his part, that he thinks I am "juding" him concerning his stance on Universal atonement. I have spent considerable time giving the commentary of others on the word "ALL" and trying to explain where I think he is missing the bigger picture by not understanding the concept of Total Depravity. At this point he has provided me with nothing in scripture ( obviously ) or anyone else save Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Saint Maximos and the present day L Ray Smith and Peter Chopelas.

One of his shorter exchanges:

Steve, God made man, God made satan. God made satan STRONGER than man. God made evil. God put us here with the deck stacked against us. Proof: It took no longer than the first man, and woman to sin, and fall short. God knew this would happen. Now if God had made man stronger than satan, and man fell, then one would have a good "theological' reason for sending him off to hell to burn forever.[ although it would not glorify God in any way that I can think of, any more than it glorifyed Calvin in playing a part in having his rival burned at the stake] So you make them burn. What is the redeming value of that? God is already the highest most powerfull being in the universe. Does this elevate him any higher? Did it elevate Calvin? No. Would it elevate God? No. There is no where to elevate from where he is at. God knew that he needed to fix the sin problem. So he sent Jesus. Jesus fixed it. When he was on the cross, and said "It is finished" It was fixed. Then and there. For the WHOLE world, just like HE said. To say that it wasn't for the Whole world [ like he said], is to say that he failed in his mission that God the Father sent him to do. I don't believe that he failed at all. 
When he said "it is finished", it was then, and there fixed. By GRACE. 
Undeserved GRACE. Mike

I think I am at the point where I need some Godly council of my own. I can answer ALL his objections with solid answers, but I find it EXTREMELY frustrating since this is my Brother. I feel I am hitting him over the head with too much information. Even though I answer all his questions, he doesn't seem to hear what I am saying or answer my questions when I pose them to him concerning logically following simple interpretation methods and understanding verses in context. What I guess I'm wondering is, to what extent does God correct the erroneous doctrine in our lives--given that we are his--before we die. He speaks ONLY of the love of God. He can't understand the attributes that speak to God's justice.  

...and for what it is worth, I have explained the Calvin/Servetus debacle to him in at least 2-3 emails, giving extremely good links with explinations of what happened with that whole deal. Obviously, he's still not satisfied with my information.

I'm ALL ears guys. Talk to me. **** Frustrated ****





VirginiaHuguenot said:


> You're welcome, brother!
> 
> I think that is why Ness used the phrase "take the word strictly."
> 
> ...


----------



## Civbert (May 2, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> There are plenty of examples we certainly don't believe ALL will be raised in Christ as Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.



We also don't believe all men are sinners strictly, since Christ did not sin. And when we say God put all things under his feet: [bible]1Co 15:27[/bible]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 2, 2007)

Steven,
Take a deep breath and step back from the debate, and accept the reality that ultimately its not up to you.

That's actually pretty liberating, isn't it? Paul reminds the Corinthians, some of whom were "puffed up" with knowledge, that they had "nothing" (including knowledge) that they did not "receive" (1 Cor. 4:7). Not that you are being proud or browbeating your brother, but you can turn that truth back on this situation. YOU didn't come to this truth by your own intellect alone, but it was God's grace to you, sanctifying your intellect to receive it.

And the same situation obtains with your brother. His reception to spiritual truth is not contingent on either his own mind, or YOUR abilities in persuasiveness. Sanctification is just as much the Spirit's work as Regeneration is. Its not a matter of "persuasive words," "excellence of speech or wisdom" (1 Cor. 2:4, 1).

So, if you've done as well as you could in presentiing truth, you've discharged your worldly duty. No point in beating your head against the wall. Now, channel your energy into the SPIRITUAL activity of wrestling with God in prayer for the mind of your brother. "Holy Spirit, by your irresistible power, break through my dear brother's confusion, and give him the clarity you gave to me! Make him a powerful but humble witness to your enlightening power, I beg of you."

And don't give up until one or the other of you is in heaven (and the theology gets all straightened out), or he changes him mind. Meanwhile, let him bring it up again, next time you talk about it. God may give you more knowledge in the interim, which you can put to use. He works by means. But maybe you will only water the ground this time, and another will harvest. Remember, the battleground is not the internet or the patio, but the prayer closet.

Blessings,


----------



## caddy (May 2, 2007)

God Bless you Brother Bruce!

I agree whole-heartedly with everything you've said. I think I just needed an outside party to speak these same truths I already know, love and accept. It is my prayer that he will one day accept them too. Thank you, and if you would, keep my brother, Mike in your prayers.

Thanks Again.

Times like this I really, really appreciate the PB.  




Contra_Mundum said:


> Steven,
> Take a deep breath and step back from the debate, and accept the reality that ultimately its not up to you.
> 
> That's actually pretty liberating, isn't it? Paul reminds the Corinthians, some of whom were "puffed up" with knowledge, that they had "nothing" (including knowledge) that they did not "receive" (1 Cor. 4:7). Not that you are being proud or browbeating your brother, but you can turn that truth back on this situation. YOU didn't come to this truth by your own intellect alone, but it was God's grace to you, sanctifying your intellect to receive it.
> ...


----------



## JM (May 2, 2007)

Gill: That the salvation which God here wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation for all, nor putting all men into a salvable state, nor an offer of salvation to all, nor 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, has provided and occurred in the covenant of his grace, sent his Son into this world to effect, which is fully effected by him.


----------



## caddy (May 2, 2007)

I know how to respond to this, but if somebody else would please do so: I can and will pass along this link to my brother. I have given him the PB link before to view some of the threads. I don't mind that he might be mad at me, but he wants to keep the dialogue going, apparently. 

Bruce, What do you think? Point him to this link and let him interact with others? I sense I am too close to this situation, and as you've stated ultimately it is not up to me to straighten his theology out. As he understands things, _mine should be straightened out_, as he states his God is much more gracious than mine.

Regardlesss, his response is below. I have dealt with his questions on a line by line, sentence by sentence basis. If someone else wants to take a stab at this, I will send him this link so he can see the responses.

His Response:

Steve, I never said that God would not judge people. He will judge everybody. For the ones that are cast into the lake of fire, that judgment will be VERY severe. It does not say how long they will stay in the lake of fire. Reason tells me that the worst sinners will stay there for the longest. [However I don’t know this for sure, maybe the fire will be hotter for the same length of time. I don’t know. It doesn’t say.] But there is your judgment, and there is your fire. OK? Now, where I differ from you is that they will stay in the fire for ever and ever. In Revelation 20:13-14 it says "The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hell [Hades] delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. And then death and hell [Hades] were cast into the lake of fire." Now tell me the answer to this. IF the lake of fire is hell [as we have been led to believe] how can you cast Hell into Hell? That is like saying that a storm came along, and picked up my truck, and cast it into my truck. It makes no sense at all. Now to say that Hades [Abode of the dead] was cast into the lake of fire, that makes sense. To say that death was cast into the lake of fire makes sense. But Hell into Hell? Now I, like you, don’t want to have a slug fest either. I just disagree with you on this. I know that you love Christ. I have no doubt about that. I know that he loves you. I have no doubt about that either. We just need to agree to disagree on this, and go on. I love you Steve, more than you know. And I want our discussions to continue. I’m sure there are a lot of things that we can find common ground on. I understand that sin is serious, and that it must be judged. I believe that we, as believers of the Gospel of Christ will not go into the lake of fire. But we will be cleaned up by fire before we go on to heaven. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. " Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold ,silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each ones work will become clear; for the day will declare it, because it will be revealed by FIRE; and the FIRE will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; BUT HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED, YET SO AS THROUGH FIRE. Your brother in Christ, Mike.


----------



## caddy (May 3, 2007)

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2006/04/22/election-all-in-scripture-and-evangelism-2/  

Most Reformed theologians, while emphasizing that God is indeed at work in sanctification, also note that man is active. Both sides are necessary to stress in order to preserve the balance between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. The best book is Stephen Marshall’s book called _The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification_. He was a Puritan, and understood the Gospel as few today do.
The Reformed faith believes that all are headed to hell unless God does something. So it is not as if humanity is grouped in between heaven and hell, and God splits some off that group to go one way, and the rest He _diverts from their original course of neutrality_ to go to hell. That is not a correct picture. Predestination is not symmetrical. Those whom God has not chosen are _passed by_, in order to receive justice from God, while those that God chooses receive God’s mercy. God is not some kind of homocidal maniac. Read Romans 9 very carefully (the passage that Arminians always skip), and read Ephesians 1.
With regard the words “any” and “all” in Scripture, we have to remind ourselves of the most important factor in biblical interpretation: context. Supposing I had a group of kids surrounding me, hounding me for a piece of candy. One particularly selfish boy asks me if I would only give candy to him. I say, “No, I am giving candy to all.” The word “all” there is in a context: I am not giving candy to the entire world. Rather, I am giving candy to all of the group. The context determines what the “all” refers to. We cannot let our predetermined ideas about God obliterate the context in which the word “all” occurs.
So, in 1 Tim 2, when Paul says that God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, we have to look back and see what the “all” is to whom Paul is referring. Are there any clues? Yes, there is verse 1, which uses the phrase “all people,” _and then describes who the all people are_. That is, they are kings, and people in high positions. In other words, God’s grace is not limited to any social class. But Paul is not making a head count of the world.
Similarly, in 1 John 2:2, where John says that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ous only but also for the sins of the whole world, we have to understand here the _historical context_. The above example examined the literary context, whereas this one revolves around the historical context. John’s readers were dealing with Gnosticism, a sect that believed in exclusivity with regard to knowledge: if you belonged to their clique, then you would have access to specialized knowledge. You weren’t really “saved,” as it were, unless you were initiated into their special group. This is much like the Masonic tradition today. So John is saying that salvation is _not limited_ to a small group, but is for every tongue, language and nation. Therefore, John cannot be made to say that Jesus Christ was the propitation for every single person head for head.
The other reason we know that this is the correct interpretation, by the way, is that Jesus’ propitation _actually accomplishes_ the salvation of His people (”It is finished”). If it actually accomplished the salvation of every single person in the world, then all people would actually be saved. But we know that not every person in the world is saved. Therefore, Christ did not die for the sins of every single person in the world.
B.B. Warfield once put it this way: the Atonement of Christ is like butter, and people are like bread. Now, if the bread over which this butter is to be spread includes everyone in the world, then the butter would not completely cover the bread: our sins would not be forgiven. However, if the bread is smaller, then the butter would cover it completely. We must balance this analogy by saying that Christ’s death has infinite value, and could cover everyone’s sins. However, what we are trying to do is to understand why it is that not everyone is saved. Now, how does this fit it with the free offer of the Gospel? For that is the next question usually asked. The answer is that God not only ordains the _result_, but He also ordains the _means_ by which the results are reached. In other words, I as a Reformed person cannot just sit back and say, “Oh, God is going to do it all, therefore I don’t have to do anything.” The reason is that God has ordained that I be an instrument through which He accomplishes His purposes. It is really amazing to think how God can use fallen me to accomplish His eternal purpose.
But then you might ask, “But is the offer of the Gospel sincere or not?” It is sincere. All who repent and turn away from their sins will be saved. The place of the doctrine of election is not in evangelism (”Some of you are elect, and some aren’t. all you have to do is discover which on it is for you”). That is a caricature of the Reformed faith. The real truth is that the doctrine of election exists to comfort doubting _believers_. Imagine salvation as a door. On the front side is an inscription, “All who will may enter.” You walk through the door. On the back side of the door is this inscription, “Elect from all eternity.” The point is, you can’t know whether or not you are elect, unless you walk through the door, and even then it might take you awhile to be able to read that door correctly.
Actually, the doctrine of election not only requires evangelism, but undergirds and strengthens it. This has always been recognized in truly Reformed circles. It is the reason why Reformed churches have sent more missionaries into the field head for head than any other form of Christianity. What do I mean by election requiring evangelism? what I said above about God electing the _means_ by which His people come to faith. The means is us! the doctrine of election also frees evangelism from the “anxious bench” syndrome common with Finney-style evangelism, where the salvation of the person depends on the eloquence of the speaker. I can share the Gospel in plain, unadorned speech, knowing that God will use it to bring His elect to salvation regardless of my eloquence. Furthermore, I know that no amount of eloquence will persuade someone who is not elect. All I have to do, then, is simple sharing of the Gospel


----------

