Why Anglican?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay; I understand the context of the thread, but, so, let me get this straight. Reject the Murray view of the free offer and you're a hypercalvinist?

That's how I was using the term. I suppose the definition is somewhat elastic meaning "a sort of Calvinism I think is too far," so you are free to disagree with it.
 
That's how I was using the term. I suppose the definition is somewhat elastic meaning "a sort of Calvinism I think is too far," so you are free to disagree with it.
Do you really believe that anyone who thinks it's improper to say that God desires the salvation of all men is a hypercalvinist, or is teaching something dangerous?
 
That's how I was using the term. I suppose the definition is somewhat elastic meaning "a sort of Calvinism I think is too far," so you are free to disagree with it.
I did not take offense at what you said. Historically there is a difference between a high Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist. The problem with the definition you are using is that it would include men like the late Dr. John H. Gerstner under the category hyper-Calvinist.
 
Do you really believe that anyone who thinks it's improper to say that God desires the salvation of all men is a hypercalvinist, or is teaching something dangerous?

Not sure where I said the notion was dangerous.

I did not take offense at what you said. Historically there is a difference between a high Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist. The problem with the definition you are using is that it would include men like the late Dr. John H. Gerstner under the category hyper-Calvinist.

Honestly, I don't know enough about Gerstner to comment.

If there is a better shorthand of "rejection of the free offer of the gospel," please substitute it for "hyper-Calvinist" in my comment.
 
Not sure where I said the notion was dangerous.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words into your mouth.

If there is a better shorthand of "rejection of the free offer of the gospel," please substitute it for "hyper-Calvinist" in my comment.
It's not a rejection of the free offer. I believe God, in the preaching of the gospel, offers Christ, with all his benefits, freely and sincerely, to all men without distinction. I do not, however, believe that it appropriate to speak of God as desiring the salvation of all men, as I think it creates insurmountable problems for Theology Proper.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words into your mouth.


It's not a rejection of the free offer. I believe God, in the preaching of the gospel, offers Christ, with all his benefits, freely and sincerely, to all men without distinction. I do not, however, believe that it appropriate to speak of God as desiring the salvation of all men, as I think it creates insurmountable problems for Theology Proper.

In all respect - does this mean you exclude 1 Timothy from the Bible?

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:3‭-‬4
http://bible.com/59/1ti.2.3-4.ESV
 
Moderating. Surely there was a better way to ask that; like what does 1 Timothy 2:3-4 mean then? Theologians such as David Dickson explained this as "God will have all sorts of men" etc. See this old thread.
Folks, with my assistance I admit, this is far afield of the thread topic. This subject has been discussed in numerous threads of the subject of the free offer and a new one can certainly be started; but I suspect except for the rabbit trials this thread had ended before now.
 
In all respect - does this mean you exclude 1 Timothy from the Bible?

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:3‭-‬4
http://bible.com/59/1ti.2.3-4.ESV
No. It mans he correctly understands that the Analogy of Scripture and the context demand that all men there means all kinds of men, which is commensurate with what the Scripture teaches about the design of the atonement, the simplicity of God, His not possessing of contrary or unfulfilled "desires," etc.
 
Moderating. Surely there was a better way to ask that; like what does 1 Timothy 2:3-4 mean then? Theologians such as David Dickson explained this as "God will have all sorts of men" etc. See this old thread.

Folks, with my assistance I admit, this is far afield of the thread topic. This subject has been discussed in numerous threads of the subject of the free offer and a new one can certainly be started; but I suspect except for the rabbit trials this thread had ended before now.

Yes you are right. My apologies. I just had a moment to ask and was kind of shocked to hear the language.
 
No. It mans he correctly understands that the Analogy of Scripture and the context demand that all men there means all kinds of men, which is commensurate with what the Scrioture teaches about the design of the atonement, the simplicity of God, His not possessing of contrary or unfulfilled "desires," etc.

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! I'm sorry if the question came across as rude.
 
That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! I'm sorry if the question came across as rude.
No worries, on my part, Ryan. I cannot say how it came across to Tyler, but context is key when we are understanding the Scriptures . . . especially taking into consideration the doctrine of God, the interpretation of "the whole counsel of God," etc. Just because brethren disagree, does not mean they have regarded some parts of Holy Scripture as not being Scripture.
 
In all respect - does this mean you exclude 1 Timothy from the Bible?

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:3‭-‬4
http://bible.com/59/1ti.2.3-4.ESV
That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! I'm sorry if the question came across as rude.
No worries, on my part, Ryan. I cannot say how it came across to Tyler, but context is key when we are understanding the Scriptures . . . especially taking into consideration the doctrine of God, the interpretation of "the whole counsel of God," etc. Just because brethren disagree, does not mean they have regard some parts of Holy Scripture as not being Scripture.

Although we are off topic, I'll give one more reply on this subject, if the moderators will allow it.

For the record, I'm not offended or upset. No worries.

As Joshua said, context is key when interpreting any passage. Here is the context for the verse in question:
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

So, Paul is encouraging Timothy to pray for all kinds of men, including kings, etc. Verses 3 and 4 are a supporting argument for Timothy to pray for these people.

When Paul tells Timothy to pray for "all men," it is clear that he is not telling him to pray for every individual, but for men of every kind. He gives kings and people in authority as examples of kinds of men.

So, Timothy is to pray for all kinds of men, and is to take as part of his encouragement to do this, that God intends to save all kinds of men.

Calvin writes:
The universal term all must always be referred to classes of men, and not to persons; as if he had said, that not only Jews, but Gentiles also, not only persons of humble rank, but princes also, were redeemed by the death of Christ. Since, therefore, he wishes the benefit of his death to be common to all, an insult is offered to him by those who, by their opinion, shut out any person from the hope of salvation.
[T]he Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations.

Feel free to PM me if you want to talk more about this. As for this thread, I think we've overstepped our bounds.
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words into your mouth.


It's not a rejection of the free offer. I believe God, in the preaching of the gospel, offers Christ, with all his benefits, freely and sincerely, to all men without distinction. I do not, however, believe that it appropriate to speak of God as desiring the salvation of all men, as I think it creates insurmountable problems for Theology Proper.

I am sorry if I offended you. I should have stated that differently. I've never looked into that topic and didn't understand what you were saying. Please forgive me.
 
I am sorry if I offended you. I should have stated that differently. I've never looked into that topic and didn't understand what you were saying. Please forgive me.
I forgive you, brother. We all have blind spots. I remember having been shocked when I first heard Calvinists teaching that God does want to save all men!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top