My Case for eternal Hell

[Homer]

Rich,

You asked:

1 Timothy 4:10 seems like it irrefutably teaches universal reconciliation. If most people remain separated from God forever, how could it be said that Jesus is the savior of all people, or the world?

Jesus is Lord and savior, in a special sense, of all who trust in and submit to Him. His being Lord and savior is coextensive. He is Lord and Savior, in another sense, to all men. Note the following statements by Peter and Paul where "is" is in the exact same form in each, the present indicative, which informs us that Jesus was the Lord and Savior of all men at the time these words were written:

Acts 10:36,
36. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—

1 Timothy 4:10
10. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Jesus' words affirmed His Lordship of all men:

Matthew 28:18,
18. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Peter could just as accurately have stated "Jesus is Lord of all men, especially of those who believe".

IMO 1 Timothy 4:10 is useless as a proof-text for universalism.

[steve7150]

Jesus' words affirmed His Lordship of all men:

Matthew 28:18,
18. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Peter could just as accurately have stated "Jesus is Lord of all men, especially of those who believe".

IMO 1 Timothy 4:10 is useless as a proof-text for universalism.





Useless? I think what it is, is another verse to add to quite a few others that sound like ultimately Jesus is the Savior of all men in the fullness of time. Paul said in Rom 4 that God speaks of things that are not as though they are. So Jesus can be called the Savior of all men, the Savior of the World in the present tense because these statements are God's will, so it's as if it's already done. Just like Abram was called Abraham by God though he was not yet the father of many nations.

[jriccitelli]

Tell me in your own words; What it is Paul is talking about from verse 4:1-5:21?
I have not seen you refer to one dot or tittle of what Paul is talking about in the passage, yet U-R demanding it is a proof text for a doctrine that is neither in the context, or purpose of the paragraph, or the verse.

Paul does not ramble aimlessly, sticking together sentences that have no relevance to the sentence proceeding or the sentence following.

Paul does not write as if he is scrap booking together a collection of various thoughts on spirituality. Except for Proverbs, neither is the Bible, or the epistles put together as if God just shuffled together some thoughts like a deck of cards (something you notice Joseph Smith did, as well as most all the Gnostic gospels).
Paul is always making a deliberate and passionate attempt to reason with the reader in a deeply meaningful and intelligent approach that is necessitates the listener pay close attention to what he is developing, building upon, and namely what he has ‘already’ said previously. Nothing drives a teacher crazier than for a student to completely miss what he has went over in detail the day before as if he never said it. You have to establish fundamentals in doctrine and in speech to ever get anywhere; otherwise you must continue to repeat ‘everything’ in order to prevent a misunderstanding of each and every concept.
A student must keep mental notes on everything previously said, otherwise the whole class is wearied by the constant necessity to repeat terms and definitions.
As our class instructors neither God, Jesus, Moses, John or Paul write as if Genesis 101, 102 etc. were ‘optional’ requirements, they expect you to be grounded in the basics taught ‘before’, as would any instructor. I am an electrician, and my dad was an electrical instructor in the USN, without keeping the basic foundations front and center at all times you may, and will most likely be electrocuted.
A Gnostic spiritualist doesn’t need context or structure to believe what they are reading because they are going to interpret things to mean ‘whatever’ they want things to mean anyways. And based on their own belief that they can receive revelation just as well as the writer, the context becomes of far less importance than what something may ‘inspire’ them to think (which leads them to disdain debate, doctrine, context and especially dogma).
We of course don’t take that approach to learning, and neither do we talk like that in conversation. We generally have a deliberate objective process and progressive direction of communication, 'especially' when teaching.

If scripture says that you must believe to be saved, how on earth do you think a verse could seem to literally imply unbelievers will also be saved – without any indication as to 'how, when or where' an unbeliever could be saved?
'Especially' when you consider 'all' the previous exhaustive stipulations?

If it says; 'The Civil war set all the slaves free, 'especially' those in Virginia' - It would imply a condition upon all the slaves of the first verse. All has just been divided by the fact that there is a group within the group

Therefore there must be a sub-group, stipulation or condition that relates to this verse in Timothy, Paul has already defined salvation as believing, so 'especially' defines the subcategory.

The Old Testament had types and figures, and the Old Testament had a plan of redemption ‘hidden in Christ’ but Christ has now revealed everything pertaining to salvation, the principles and doctrines are laid out at times exhaustively in chapters long discourse. So you don’t approach the New Testament as if God or an Apostle is purposely hiding hugely significant tidbits of doctrine on major doctrines in one word located in a chapter or book dealing with an entirely different subject, namely instructions for holiness, discipline and order in the Church. Paul occasionally will refer to a previous doctrine, verse or saying for emphasis or praise every once in awhile in the middle of a text, but they never change what was already made clear previously.
I had a collection of verses on the word ‘all’ somewhere, but I want to post that point under it’s own thread, under;
‘Does all literally mean every single person?’ No.

Tell me in your own words; What is Paul is talking about from verse 4:1-5:21?

[Paidion]

Jesus is Lord and savior, in a special sense, of all who trust in and submit to Him. His being Lord and savior is coextensive. He is Lord and Savior, in another sense, to all men. Note the following statements by Peter and Paul where "is" is in the exact same form in each, the present indicative, which informs us that Jesus was the Lord and Savior of all men at the time these words were written:

Acts 10:36,
36. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—

1 Timothy 4:10
10. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Jesus' words affirmed His Lordship of all men:

Matthew 28:18,
18. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Peter could just as accurately have stated "Jesus is Lord of all men, especially of those who believe".

IMO 1 Timothy 4:10 is useless as a proof-text for universalism.

I don't think these quotes will do to support your position, Homer. First the quote from acts (in context):

And Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)... (Acts 10:34-36)

It seems clear that the "all" to which Luke refers are all those in every nation who fear Him and do what is right and acceptable to Him. Jesus is Lord of all such people. This is a case of a limited "all". But in 1 Timothy 1:10, there in no indication that "all people" is limited in any sense.

Nor is the "all authority" which God had given to Jesus (Matthew 28:18) tantamount to the truth that He is the Saviour of all people. Again the context indicates the meaning:

...Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

That word I underlined "therefore" indicates the next sentence relation to the previous one. Because Jesus had all authority in heaven and on earth, He had the authority to send His disciples to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to keep His commandments, and to be with them until the end of the age.

So I conclude that 1 Timothy 4:10 still stands in its straightforward statement that Jesus is the Saviour of ALL people. As Steve 7150 said, He is "the Savior of the World in the present tense because these statements are God's will, so it's as if it's already done." This makes perfect sense. A good illustration of this is found in Hebrews 2:

It has been testified somewhere,
“What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. (Hebrews 2:6-8)

When God decides to do a thing, it's as good as done NOW. So we might as well say that He already did it. Since, in the Plan of the Ages, God intends all to be saved through Jesus, we might as well say with the apostle Paul, that Christ is the Saviour of all people NOW!

[RICHinCHRIST]

Tell me in your own words; What it is Paul is talking about from verse 4:1-5:21?
I have not seen you refer to one dot or tittle of what Paul is talking about in the passage, yet U-R demanding it is a proof text for a doctrine that is neither in the context, or purpose of the paragraph, or the verse.

Paul does not ramble aimlessly, sticking together sentences that have no relevance to the sentence proceeding or the sentence following...
Tell me in your own words; What is Paul is talking about from verse 4:1-5:21?

I agree, JR, that Paul does not ramble aimlessly. Allow me to explain why I think the context does not disprove UR. In this passage, Paul is giving specific instructions to Timothy on how to lead the community of believers he was overseeing. He gave him multiple exhortations to teach certain things (everything previous to 1 Tim 4:11), and how specifically to lead the congregation on a variety of matters (1 Timothy 4:12-5:20). It is my perception that Paul is giving a kind of "bullet-style" series of exhortations, one after the other. In other words, he's jumping from topic to topic quite swiftly, trying to cover as much ground as he can, in the simplest and concise way possible. Look at 1 Thessalonians 5:11-5:22 and you will see a similar "bullet-style" series of exhortations. Therefore, in my estimation, Paul is somewhat rambling (although not aimlessly, but with a purpose).

But in 1 Timothy 4:10b, it's my opinion that Paul is making a comment about God's redemptive work in passing. What I mean is, is that Paul is taking a parenthetical break from his exhortations to Timothy, to remind him of God's saving work and how it extends to all people. Therefore, the context is somewhat irrelevant, because it is not Paul's intention for this statement to apply to what was previously or thereafter mentioned.

Allow me to break down the verse. "for to this end we both labor and suffer reproach...". This I believe is in reference to what was previously mentioned. Paul says, if you exercise toward godliness, you have great reward, but it will come at great cost. It will take hard work and you will suffer for it. "Because we trust in the living God..." Paul, Timothy, and other co-laborers will suffer because they trust in God (as he says elsewhere, everyone who desires to live a faithful, godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution). "Who is the savior of all men, especially those who believe"... This is the part that I believe is a statement made in passing. Paul just quickly references God's work of salvation, even though perseverance in living a godly life is the context. Paul could have mentioned anything he wanted to about God here. He could have said "because we trust in the living God, who is the creator of the heavens and earth". Or "because we trust in the living God, who sent Jesus Christ His only Son". Paul is just giving some insight into who God is... It's not a phrase meant to be interpreted in light of the context, it is only a statement of an unrelated truth in passing. Perhaps God's redemptive plan was something Paul wanted to remind Timothy to teach the people, so he mentioned it in passing. Or perhaps it just came from his lips onto the scroll in a Spirit-led train of thought. Whichever it may be, I believe Paul is just reminding Timothy of the scope of God's redemptive work in light of the suffering he may endure for exercising toward godliness and teaching the word of God to his fellow believers. That's how I understand the context. Therefore, the context doesn't disprove or affirm UR, but the phrase "savior of all men, especially those who believe" implies it. That phrase, however, is unrelated to the context because it is made in passing and is meant to expound on the character of this living God Timothy serves.

Rich,

You asked:

1 Timothy 4:10 seems like it irrefutably teaches universal reconciliation. If most people remain separated from God forever, how could it be said that Jesus is the savior of all people, or the world?


Jesus is Lord and savior, in a special sense, of all who trust in and submit to Him. His being Lord and savior is coextensive. He is Lord and Savior, in another sense, to all men. Note the following statements by Peter and Paul where "is" is in the exact same form in each, the present indicative, which informs us that Jesus was the Lord and Savior of all men at the time these words were written:

Acts 10:36,
36. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—...

I believe that Jesus is Lord of all. He owns all people because He created them. He also has been made Lord by the Father and has received all authority in heaven and on earth. Jesus exercises His Lordship over believers and non-believers alike. If believers submit, they respect His Lordship. When non-believers rebel, they disrespect His Lordship (and this does not make Jesus less of a Lord over them).

1 Timothy 4:10
10. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Jesus' words affirmed His Lordship of all men:

Matthew 28:18,
18. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Peter could just as accurately have stated "Jesus is Lord of all men, especially of those who believe".

IMO 1 Timothy 4:10 is useless as a proof-text for universalism.

I agree that Peter or Paul could have also said that Jesus is The Lord of all men, especially those who believe. But that's not what Paul said. He said God is the Savior of all men. Jesus exercises His lordship whether or not someone submits to Him. But God cannot exercise His salvation (the definition of a Savior) unless one submits to Him. So Jesus is both Lord and Savior. He can still be Lord over the rebels, and has the authority to judge them for their rebellion. That is an exercise of His Lordship. But He cannot be said to be the Savior of all people, unless He does indeed SAVE all people. If he does not save all people, then He cannot be said to be the Savior of all men. If someone wholeheartedly rejects UR, they must say that God is NOT the Savior of ALL people, but is only the Savior of SOME people. Since God saves all people, like Paul said, then how are we to understand His saving work? What exactly does God save them from? Singalphile suggested that God saves them from sin, as well as general calamities, and an immediate death sentence. This may be true to a certain extent. But I don't think God has saved unbelievers from sin (yet). If UR is true, then God intends on saving them from sin at some point in their future. We can say that God is their Savior currently, because He intends to save them at some future time. It's as if I was waiting on a street corner in a really bad neighborhood and I said, "My father is picking me up in his car". My father is intending on saving me from the dangers of this street corner. My phrase can be interpreted two ways. Either I am literally entering into the car at the very present moment in which my dad is picking me up, or my father IS picking me up at a future time. In either case, the word IS is used, whether to describe a event in the present or the future. God may not be the Savior of all people yet, but He intends to be at some point when He succeeds in making all things subject to Him and reconciles all things to Himself.

[Homer]

I think the point is being missed.

1 Timothy 4:10
10. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

At the very moment Paul wrote those words Jesus was the Saviour, in some sense, of all persons alive at that time. The present indicative "is" says nothing about either the past or future. Paul also says that, at the same time, Jesus was the Saviour of some other persons in a different "special" sense. The statement of Paul shows that Jesus can be said to be the Saviour of persons who are not saved. This is because that is the office that Jesus holds. And He is Lord of those who do not acknowledge His lordship. They live, breath, and have their being at His whim, even though they do not acknowledge Him.

[Singalphile]

There is at least one good or interesting point in every one of the posts since my last. That's all.

[Paidion]

The present indicative "is" says nothing about either the past or future.

What about Hebrews 2:8 that I quoted?

You HAVE PUT all things in subjection under his feet." For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.

The writer uses the aorist active indicative. "Have put" is the past tense. "He left nothing not subjtect to Him" ("left" is also in the past tense). Yet the rest of the sentence makes clear that it hadn't happened yet at the time the author wrote these words. "We DO NOT YET SEE all things put under him.

If this future event of everything being subject to Christ was spoken of as having already occurred, why couldn't the future event of Christ's being the Saviour of all people be spoken of in the present tense?

Again, if God decides to put everything under Christ's feet, it's as good as done! One might as well say God has already done it.
If God has decided to be the Saviour of all people, then it's as good as done! One might as well say that He is the Saviour of all people NOW.

[RICHinCHRIST]

I think the point is being missed.

1 Timothy 4:10
10. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

At the very moment Paul wrote those words Jesus was the Saviour, in some sense, of all persons alive at that time. The present indicative "is" says nothing about either the past or future.

You're right that the word IS is not referring to anything in the past. But the word IS can be used to refer to something in the future. Let me give you another example.

God is getting His way, especially when He tries.
This phrase is ambiguous (like 1 Timothy 4:10) as to when God will get His way. But even though the word IS is used, it could still refer to God getting His way at some future time. This phrase would be true if it described a present moment event or a future intention of God. Let's take something as an example in which God got his way in the past. God delivered Israel from their Egyptian oppressors. This phrase could have been spoken to Moses when he was at the burning bush. It would be true at the very present moment, because God was trying to get Moses' attention in order to send him to be the instrument of deliverance. This phrase also could have referred to God's future intention to literally deliver His people Israel after the ten plagues. Both are instances in which God is getting His way, but at the time the phrase was spoken (at the burning bush), they would be in reference to one event in the present and another in the future.

I'm curious Homer, how it is you think unbelievers were presently being saved at the time 1 Timothy was written. What were the unbelievers saved from?

... The statement of Paul shows that Jesus can be said to be the Saviour of persons who are not saved.

This appears to me to be a contradiction in terms. How can God save someone who is not saved?

[jriccitelli]

Rich I told you it does not make sense, unless it means; to treat all men equal (as the context alludes to) because God is potentially their savior, if they believe.

“… I believe is a statement made in passing… It's not a phrase meant to be interpreted in light of the context, it is only a statement of an unrelated truth in passing… so he mentioned it in passing"

I do not see 4:10b as a statement 'made in passing' I see it fitting the context, and only in context does it make sense. The larger context concerning impartiality towards all men goes all the way back to 1Tim.2:1-6, which Paul picks up again in 4:4-5:21. 4:10 is very similar to his statement in 2:1-5;

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions [and] thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, [and] one mediator also between God and men, [the] man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all' (1Tim2:1-5)

Why did you not mention this in your answer?
This is all in accord with Paul's teaching all men and women are to be treated equal, and all men are to be besought in hopes that they will repent and believe, for Jesus is the Savior of all and anyone who will believe.

That's how I understand the context. Therefore, the context doesn't disprove or affirm UR, but the phrase "savior of all men, especially those who believe" implies it (Rich)

Rich thank you for answering the challenge to the context, so I really hate to criticize your answer but I notice your answer was actually only about verse 4:10, I don’t see any reference to anything surrounding verse 4:10 except your note about the idea of suffering for good (which Paul mentions in 2ndTim), yet suffering and persecution is ‘no where’ else in 1Tim (Paul is talking about labor, striving and hard work, which evidence in older manuscripts seem to indicate, strive not as in persecution but as in agonizing work). Paul ‘is’ reminding Timothy as to ‘why’ they strive ahead but what that entails you did not even touch upon. I asked about the context (?); “What is Paul is talking about from verse 4:1-5:21?” Finding context is not to “break down the verse”, Is this how you normally understand context?

The verse has to agree with the command to repent and believe, it also has the biblical context of a judgment on unbelievers, note 2Thes1:8; “…dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord”
And 2Thes.3:2 notes ‘and that we will be rescued from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith.’

The ambition and zeal to hopefully reach and teach everyman is definitely a Paulism, as is Pauls way of continuing His theme of always giving God ‘all’ praise in everything, and reminding everyone also that Christ is ‘all’ things to all men (Col. 1:17), but this amplified zeal and attribution to God should not change the exhaustive doctrines of repentance, belief and hell.

Compare Colossians 1:28 where it says;
We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. 29 For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.

Seems like this has a lot with what I am saying, Paul’s desire is teach ‘every man’ and to present 'every man’ complete, for this is the reason he labors and strives. This is in accord with the revelation that all men are equal in Gods sight, and this is something Paul himself is now having to teach to the whole world, as referred to just a verse earlier in Colossians 1:27;
'God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles'
And Paul reminds them again in Col.3:11;
'In which there is no [distinction between] Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all'
Again the same teaching that we are all equal, God is not showing partiality, and that Christ is for all and through all. But is Paul saying Christ ‘is all’ people? (that's kind of wierd) Is Christ in ‘all’ potentially? The context is speaking of the believers; the saints and faithful (Col.1:2) and specifically them (Col.3:1) and those who have been chosen of God (Col.3:12).
The text goes on to encourage everyone to accept everyone else ‘bearing with one another, forgiving one another’, wives, husbands, children, slaves, masters, all this is almost identical to the context in 1Timothy.

You did not note anything concerning the verses surrounding verse 4:10 in your thoughts on the context, such as ‘a teacher of the Gentiles (2:7) conduct, discipline, women, children, widows etc, and nothing regarding the theme ending in 5:21 of; "do these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality".

And compare 1Tim 1;15-18 with 1Tim 4:4-11;
"It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost [of all]. 16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, [be] honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. 18 This command I entrust to you, Timothy, [my] son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight... (1Tim 1:15-18)

Notice the servanthood of Christ (1:15, above) and brethren as good servants below (4:6).
Demonstrate perfect patience (1:16, above) to all (4:10) men. As an example for those who would (who might believe, or to bring about belief, so that they might be persuaded to believe) ‘believe’ in Him ‘for’ eternal life.
Then again a praise of His power (1:17) similar to 1Tim 4:11.
For this we fight the good fight (1:18 above) as in labor and strive (4:10)
Then the exhortation to commit to (1:18), prescribe and teach about these things (4:18).
(And note; In ‘accordance’ with the prophecies ‘previously’ made; 1:18)

In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus… but godliness is profitable for all things,…10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. 11Prescribe and teach these things. (1tim 4:6-11)

Paul generally repeats all his thoughts and themes at least once in his epistles, and the mirroring text would be the best way to interpret a verse. And verse 1Tim 4:6-11 does reflect 1Tim1:15-18, 2:1-7, and Colossians 1:27-29, 3:11, etc;

Unless someone has a better interpretation of how God is the savior of all, I think a common sense honest hermeneutic points directly to UR. (Rich pg.17)

That is your hermeneutic? It is wiser to refrain from being dogmatic about any interpretation if it doesn’t make sense. I would not use the word ‘all’ to reduce all previous warnings of unbelief to nothing and assert Paul is now assuring us that unbelievers will all be saved, without a much closer thought to what the context might actually be saying.