# Calvin on 1 Tim. 2



## Scott (Sep 26, 2005)

1 Tim. 2:3 reads: "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Calvin writes this:



> Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "œIf God" say they, "œwishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; _for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man_.



What is the italicized part talking about?


----------



## Saiph (Sep 26, 2005)

He is hiding the fact that he did not understand the passage behing God's divine prerogative.

The simple meaning is that quite often, the word "ALL" means "all without distinction", not "all without exception".

The passage could be translated loosly as:

"This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all types of people from diverse nationalities, and statures, and diverse abilities, to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

IMWO


----------



## Scott (Sep 26, 2005)

Mark: That is a very nice quote.

That is Calvin's position too. I did not quote the full section. He similarly says that "all" refers to "all classes of men." The quote in my first post was Calvin's brief attempt at an alternate explanation. Some who opposed predestination used 1 Tim. 2 against predestination, suggesting that all means "all individuals." According to them if God predestined some individuals for perdition, then he would not ask for prayer for them. Calvin is trying to say that even if "all" means "all individuals" it does not undermine predestination. I don't think he is real clear on why, but he is evidently relying on a distinction between God's secret will and His revealed will.

BTW, what jurisdiction is your Anglican church under - an African jurisdiction?

Thanks

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Saiph (Sep 26, 2005)

John Owen says similar in "Death Of Death".




> BTW, what jurisdiction is your Anglican church under - an African jurisdiction?



Yes.


I am not Anglican yet . . just attending for now until I find a permanent church. It is the only church here that allows paedocommunion. Yet, they have a heretical view of the Holy Spirit. I am considering a PCA church, but that means my 2 & 3 year old children will not be able to partake of the Eucharist. I would also have to bring my 7 and 5 year olds before the elders to be questioned so they may partake. I know they are solid enough in their thinking and faith to answer the questions, but the principle of questioning them is still very semi-pelagian.


----------



## Scott (Sep 26, 2005)

"but the principle of questioning them is still very semi-pelagian."

I don't think so. It is very catholic. The western church, RC and protestant, has always rejected this practice.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 26, 2005)

You are a ruling elder in the PCA ?

When are children permitted at the Lord's table in your church ? ??


----------



## Saiph (Sep 26, 2005)

Oh, you mean the practice of paedocommunion . . I see.

Sadly, you are correct. But an argument from antiquity is no argument at all.


----------



## Scott (Sep 26, 2005)

"Sadly, you are correct. But an argument from antiquity is no argument at all."

An argument from antiquity can provide what we in law call "persuasive authority," which is different from binding authority. Even though it does not rule the day, it does guide us. We should not rule out the longstanding mind of the church on these matters. I am a bit surprised as your easy dismissal of that, as you seem more in tune with the church than many.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 26, 2005)

I guess I am more convicted by the words of Christ to suffer little children to come to Him for blessings (which is in essence what Eucharist is), than I am when it comes to a warning by St. Paul to a Corinthian church that was getting drunk at the table and not letting the poor(and probably not little children) partake of the sacred feast.

Context convicts me to take Passover as the norm for distribution, and not the Corinthian scolding of Paul.


I also view God as more willing to bless those who eat His body and blood (without which we have no life) at the table than to curse those for lack of understanding. (ie. children or the feeble minded)


----------

