1 Timothy 4:10

[Guest]

IMO, I have to admit that there is enough ambiguity in Scripture to leave equal amounts of weight for both Annihilationism and Universal Reconciliation, with Eternal Torment being the least likely option



Dave, do you think the word "all" which is used many times in scripture may be hyperbole for "great majority" without meaning every last person?

[_Rick_C]

Hi Dave,

First, I would assert that the verses referenced do not prove that God will not save all people.

Second, if there are some other verses in Scripture that say that God will not save all people, how do we know which way to apply. Either we bring other verses to bear on 1 Timothy 4:10 and thereby change or add to its meaning, or we take 1 Timothy 4:10 to the other verses to change or add to their meanings. I'm not sure how one can say conclusively which direction that should go.

[3] In studying the verse a bit myself, I could see that Paul's statement in verse 10 could be meant to contrast the inclusiveness of God against the exclusivity of the false teachings described in verse 3. Still, this explanation doesn't remove the possibility that God will save all people.

1. 1 Timothy 4:10 shows that only believers are currently {effectually, chiefly, specially, particularly} saved; Paul labors that others might be saved {as they can potentially can be}.

2. There are plenty of verses that talk about God's limited number of the "elect" throughout the whole Bible: They are elected from "all" {and I'm not talking about Calvinism, I must point out}. This is a---if not THE---recurring theme through the Bible.

The method of taking a verse/or a section of a verse/ 'here or there' to "add" (or to "subtract") from other verses some place else is bad hermeneutics: proof-texting. Compatibility of verses is what we are looking for: Coherence. Then, and only then, can we use them together correctly. We're not adding or subtracting anything!

3. I'll do an exegesis of the passage tomorrow to prove Paul wasn't teaching 'modern day universalism' in this passage; he says it himself. Look the passage over again and you'll see Paul using a Chiasm <<clickit.

One thing that keeps coming up in our 'Universalist Debate' is following the biblical authors' train of thought. This is absolutely essential. So, I'll give an exegesis tomorrow, hopefully (been busy lately).

I work nites @ bedtime,
Rick



Rick

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

Regarding 1 Timothy 4:10:

A theme that runs throughout both the Old and New Testament is that of the elect (as Rick mentioned). I know that sends up Calvinistic red flags, but hear me out. Throughout scripture God selects individuals, groups, tribes and nations for various purposes. The most notable, of course, being Abraham (over everyone else walking the earth at that time), Isaac (over Ishmael), Jacob (over Esau), the Levites (out of the Israelites) and the Israelites in general (over all the other tribes and nations - do you ever wonder, why not Laotians or Mayans or Eskimos or Australian Aboriginals?).

When God elects a person or people it is because He has a purpose for them. In the case of Abraham and his descendents it was so that all people would be blessed through them. I've heard it said that they were blessed in order to be a blessing.

In this respect, the elect also serve as a type of "first fruits" - a representation of things to come.

Paul wrote:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. - Eph 2:1-10

Speaking for myself, I cannot take any credit for becoming a Christian. It was totally and completely a work of the Holy Spirit. Even the faith I had to "accept" Him was a gift from Him. How could a dead man even reach out towards his rescuer! Here I go sounding Calvinist again!

Why were we saved? Whether we had a modicum of choice in the matter or not, why are we included in "the elect"? We are blessed to be a blessing. We are a kind of first fruits (after Christ Himself). We are the leaven that gradually spreads through the dough. We are the salt of the earth that preserves it; the light on the hill that acts as a beacon, reflecting Christ in the darkness.

We are experiencing His salvation here and now. To others, it will come later. After all, He is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Homer, I get the impression that what you're after is a "big picture" explanation of how it all fits together in Christian Universalism. I don't know if I'm up to the task, but I know a pretty good resource that might suffice. It is a book called "Hope Beyond Hell" which you can download for free from this site: http://www.hopebeyondhell.net

I'd be interested to know what you think of it, if you're so inclined.

- Danny

[Guest]

Danny,

You wrote:

It is a book called "Hope Beyond Hell" which you can download for free from this site: http://www.hopebeyondhell.net

I'd be interested to know what you think of it, if you're so inclined.

I am very busy now with a class at Church so am limited in time to read. I took a look at the book, in particular the section "Twenty Five Texts Testify" and must say this is pretty weak stuff.

I am priveledged to have a copy of an epistolary debate, circa 1840, between Dolphus Skinner (universalist) and Alexander Campbell (evangelical), both of whom are far above the level of the author of the book you mentioned. The book is over 400 pages of fine print. Skinner was supposedly the leading thinker among the New England universalists of the day and gave the impression he was knowledgeable in Greek until he was exposed as an amateur. Otherwise he presented his case about as well as could be done.

Sadly for me Skinner ended the book dishonorably. They had agreed that Skinner would make the opening statement and Campbell would close. (The "epistolary debate" was conducted by mailing their responses back and forth and publishing them monthly in their respective periodicals.) After the debate Campbell agreed Skinner could publish the discussion in book form. Skinner saw to it that Campbell did not get the agreed upon last statement; he heavily footnoted Campbell's closing statement with comments of his own.

Sorry I digress, I was reminded of this by one of Paidion's stories. Thanks for your kind patience!

[Guest]

That little "Twenty Five Texts" section is one of the weakest parts of the book.
The "180 Passages" in the appendix is (obviously) more thorough. The book itself is written to a popular audience -- definitely not a scholarly tome and only 250 pages -- but it does give a pretty good overview (imho) of what Christian Universalists believe and why.

Meatier works would include Talbott (The Inescapable Love of God / Eternal Salvation? The Current Debate) and MacDonald (The Evangelical Universalist).

I've never heard of Dolphus Skinner.

[_Rick_C]

Greetings,

This chapter isn't really in a chiasm as I had thought but does have a similar structure....

Context.
1 Timothy 4 (NASB)
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
5for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

6In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.
7But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness;
8for "bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come."
9It {above in quotes} is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance.
10For 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.

Verses 1-3
Doctrines of demons: Legalism: forced asceticism and food restrictions (vegetarianism)
Verses 4-6
Refuted: All foods are good, sanctified by prayer with thanksgiving, spiritual nourishment in sound doctrine
Verses 7-8
Timothy charged to shun fables <<and>> set his mind on godly self-discipline
Verse 8
(Fawcett, Jamison, and Brown Commentary)
bodily discipline is only of little profit--Greek, "profiteth to (but) a small extent." Paul does not deny that fasting and abstinence from conjugal intercourse for a time, with a view to reaching the inward man through the outward, do profit somewhat, Acts 13:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5,7, 9:26,27 (though in its degenerate form, asceticism, dwelling solely on what is outward, 1 Timothy 4:3, is not only not profitable but injurious). Timothy seems to have had a leaning to such outward self-discipline (compare 1 Timothy 5:23). Paul, therefore, while not disapproving of this in its due proportion and place, shows the vast superiority of godliness or piety, as being profitable not merely "to a small extent," but unto all things; for, having its seat within, it extends thence to the whole outward life of a man. Not unto one portion only of his being, but to every portion of it, bodily and spiritual, temporal and eternal [ALFORD]. "He who has piety (which is 'profitable unto all things') wants nothing needed to his well-being, even though he be without those helps which, 'to a small extent,' bodily exercise furnishes" [CALVIN]. "Piety," which is the end for which thou art to "exercise thyself" (1 Timothy 4:7), is the essential thing: the means are secondary.
since it holds promise, &c.--Translate as Greek, "Having promise of life, that which now is, and that which is to come." "Life" in its truest and best sense now and hereafter (2 Timothy 1:1). Length of life now so far as it is really good for the believer; life in its truest enjoyments and employments now, and life blessed and eternal hereafter (Matthew 6:33, 10:29,30). "Now in this time" (Psalms 84:11, 112:1-10, Romans 8:28, 1 Corinthians 3:21,22, "all things are yours . . . the world, life . . . things present, things to come"). Christianity, which seems to aim only at our happiness hereafter, effectually promotes it here (1 Timothy 6:6, 2 Peter 1:3). Compare Solomon's prayer and the answer (1 Kings 3:7-13).
Verse 9
(1 Timothy 1:15). This verse (Greek), "faithful is the saying," &c. confirms the assertion as to the "promise" attached to "godliness," 1 Timothy 4:8, and forms a prefatory introduction to 1 Timothy 4:10, which is joined to 1 Timothy 4:9 by "For." So 2 Timothy 2:11. Godly men seem to suffer loss as to this life: Paul hereby refutes the notion [BENGEL]. "God is the Saviour specially of those that believe" (1 Timothy 4:10), both as to "the life that now is," and also as to "the life which is to come" {1 Timothy 4:8}.
Verse 10
See my post on page one.
Verse 11 (me now)
Paul charges Timothy to teach these things: a. Sound doctrine in refutation of the false. b. [The sound doctrine that] God is the Saviour of believers {'those who are believing', RYLT) in particular. c. Through the exercise of godliness or spiritual discipline, believers reap special benefits (profit) in this life and the life to come. c. Paul [and Timothy] labored to spread the message "God is the Saviour of all men" TO all men. The Gospel is sound doctrine for all who believe.

As we can see, Paul didn't teach 'modern day universalism' or reconciliationism in this passage. The biblical concept of universalism is God's calling all to come and be His Elect People--as opposed to the old covenant which was with the Jews (national or ethnic Israel) alone.

John wrote about the particular salvation of believers and the exclusion of unbelievers also:
1 John 5 (NASB)
10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

Rick

P.S. I was thinking of some of the the stuff that's in the Jamison, Fawcett, and Brown commentary. To save time, I just posted them,

[_Rick_C]

Danny,

We are experiencing His salvation here and now. To others, it will come later. After all, He is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

From 1 Timothy Chapter Four, demonstrate that Paul taught God will save unbelievers after they die.

Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

Danny,

I've never heard of Dolphus Skinner.

I should have said Skinner was "a" leading Universalist of his day. He was an editor of the "Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate" of Utica, N. Y. Campbell had been challenged to debate by a Universalist of lesser stature and refused because he felt nothing would be gained if he was perceived as having the better of the argument with a person who was not highly regarded.

[Guest]

Rick,

1. 1 Timothy 4:10 shows that only believers are currently {effectually, chiefly, specially, particularly} saved; Paul labors that others might be saved {as they can potentially can be}.

I agree with this assessment. However, this doesn't disprove that the statement "...because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.", might plainly refer to God's plan to eventually redeem all people. I can't get past the plain meaning of that clause.

The method of taking a verse/or a section of a verse/ 'here or there' to "add" (or to "subtract") from other verses some place else is bad hermeneutics: proof-texting. Compatibility of verses is what we are looking for: Coherence. Then, and only then, can we use them together correctly. We're not adding or subtracting anything!

My point was that the commentators you quoted on 1 Timothy 4:10 seemed to use other verses to change the plain reading into "...who is the Savior of all men, potentially..." I didn't find that the verses they referenced weighty enough to insert the adverb "potentially". It seems one could make the case instead, to insert the adverb "eventually". This leads us to my main point about this verse - I've not encountered conclusive evidence that Paul's descriptive clause couldn't refer to God as the eventual Savior of all mankind.

As we can see, Paul didn't teach 'modern day universalism' or reconciliationism in this passage.

Thanks for your exegesis on the passage. I agree with you that the main context of this barely brushes the life to come, yet that clause in verse 10 plainly states that the "...living God, who is the Savior of all men...", but I cannot agree that there is no possibility that this clause might be a reference to Universal Reconciliation.

John wrote about the particular salvation of believers and the exclusion of unbelievers also:
1 John 5 (NASB)
10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

I respectfully disagree. There is nothing in this passage that disproves the possibility that after death God, through corrective punishment, will bring those who died in rebellion to Christ to eventual trust in Christ and therefore "eternal life."


Thanks for the respectful dialogue,
Dave

[Guest]

Schoel,

You wrote:

I agree with this assessment. However, this doesn't disprove that the statement "...because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.", might plainly refer to God's plan to eventually redeem all people. I can't get past the plain meaning of that clause.

How do you understand the similar statement Peter made "Jesus is Lord of all"? Peter meant "now", at the time He said it. God is the provider, sustainer, (savior) of all men at this moment, the same as He is Lord at this moment, is He not?