1 Tim 2:4,6 and Arminians

Status
Not open for further replies.
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)
 
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.

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
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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."
 
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.

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.


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.



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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
- 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top