1 Timothy 4:10

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:15 am

Hi Rick,

Remember the Already/Not Yet eschatological concept? I'm sure you do. Paul's theology teaches that believers are already...and also not yet saved; with salvation being finally and fully realized at the end of the age; Christ's return and the new universal order.

Neither 1 Timothy 4:10 in-context nor the entire corpus of Paul's NT teaching say a single thing about "unbelievers will experience that salvation after they die."

I agree regarding Already/Not Yet, but see it as pertaining to all people, not just those who become believers during the course of their lives.

You bring up an interesting point regarding the lack of a scripture which explicitly states that "unbelievers will experience that salvation after they die." Numerous scriptures however explicitly state that all will be saved. The options therefore would seem to be that:

a) The scriptures don't really mean all.
b) All will become believers during their lives.
c) All will become believers either in this life or the next.

I don't believe a or b to be correct. Do you know of another option?

Also, conversely, are you aware of a scripture that explicitly states that it is only during this life that one can be saved?

Post by **__id_1679** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:52 am

Danny,

Quote : "Do you believe that all will not be saved"?

Yes! The reason I selected this question is because it is the central issue we are discussing. The answer in the NT is that the elect in Christ will be saved. The question then becomes; 'who are the elect'?

Are the 'wicked' elect? Or, will the wicked become elect? What is the fate of the 'wicked'? How are they contrasted with the 'righteous'? Is there going to be a time after the Judgement when the 'wicked' become or will be made righteous [/i]since all universally will be raised from the dead?

Consider the following:

Rev. 22:11-15

He that s unjust, let him be unjust still...12..behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me to give to every man according to his work..
14..blessed are they that wash their robes, that they MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE TREE OF LIFE AND MAY ENTER...15.. For OUTSIDE are dogs..."

Nahum 1:3

" The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, AND WILL NOT AT ALL
AQUIT THE GUILTY...

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:42 pm

Ok, I feel like we're making progress here. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

You've made it clear that you believe that all will not be saved.

My next question is this:

Do you believe it was God's intention to save everyone?

Post by **__id_1679** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:06 pm

Danny,

Your question: "Do you believe it was God's intention to save everyone"?

No! If it were, then God would have saved everyone. There would be no reason for our discussion if it were God's intention to save everyone. Do you assume that God has no good purpose in allowing evil
or the 'wicked' to exsist in this age? Why do you assume that Godmust save everyone?

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:29 pm

Question: "Do you believe that all will not be saved"?

Answer: Yes! The reason I selected this question is because it is the central issue we are discussing. The answer in the NT is that the elect in Christ will be saved. The question then becomes; 'who are the elect'?

Question: "Do you believe it was God's intention to save everyone"?

No! If it were, then God would have saved everyone. There would be no reason for our discussion if it were God's intention to save everyone.

OK, thank you Bob, for your straight-forward answers to these questions. If I understand you correctly, you believe that all people will not be saved, and that is was never God's intention to save all people.

Do you believe then that God pre-determined who would be saved?

In answer to your questions:

Do you assume that God has no good purpose in allowing evil or the 'wicked' to exsist in this age?

I believe that the existence of evil in mankind is a by-product of free-will which, in turn, is necessary for us to be able to be honestly be loved by God and to honestly love Him in return.

Why do you assume that God must save everyone?

I don't so much assume that he must, but that He wants to and is able to. I'm come to this view based on the reading of scripture. The way He has dealt with me in my life has also reinforced my belief in this view.

As an aside, Nahum was speaking about the temporal destruction of Ninevah as judgment for all of the rotten things the Assyrians had done over the course of many, many years. He wasn't referring in any way, shape or form to eternal punishment (or annihilation) of mankind.

Post by **_Rick_C** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:33 pm

Dave, (and to any CU poster),

I wrote:
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}.

You replied:
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.

1 Tim 4:10 has four clauses:
1. For to this end we toil and strive,
2. because we have our hope set on the living God,
3. who is the Savior of all people,
4. especially of those who believe.

For to this end we toil and strive,
The labor and striving is the exercise of godliness. v. 7b "godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come." Godliness promises the life to come for the believers Paul is talking about and writing to. It logically follows that the ungodly do not have this promise nor a share in that life to come.

because we have our hope set on the living God,
Unbelievers do not hope in the living God of the Christians and, thus, do not (and cannot) share it.

who is the Savior of all people,
God saves people. One who saves is a Savior. Note: it doesn't say God has saved or if he [ever] will save all people. This is in the the present tense!

especially of those who believe (Gk, who are believing)
Now Paul specifies 'at what time and to whom?' God is "plainly" [already, literally] the Savior of; He has saved those who have believed at some point in the past and who continue to believe in the present.

Paul says literally nothing about a possibility of God being the Savior for anyone other than those who are currently believing. God was the Savior before anyone believed, including Paul, me, you or anyone else. That doesn't change: God, who is the Savior of all. He remains the Savior whether we believe, have our hopes set on him, anticipate the life to come or not.

It's impossible to get the idea that Paul taught 'salvation after death' from this verse. It's just isn't there.

You wrote: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.

I think what you are calling "plain" reading is abject literalism and erroneous. Looking at the verse clause by clause and thought by thought; there is nothing to support the idea that Paul had 'universal reconciliation' in mind. Not there.

The rest of Paul's teaching and the NT teaches that God is the potential Savior of all (all being anyone who believes). It's as "plain" as the nose on your face....

Do you think passages that are clear should be used to interpret the more difficult ones?

10d "...especially {specially, particularly, chiefly, most of all} of those who believe."
It follows: God, is not the Savior of those who disbelieve in particular.
Or, "Chiefly, God saves only those who are believing believe."
Or, "Most of all, God saves believers specially" {in keeping with the Election).

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.

Paul's quite clear that those who believe, have present hope in God, and exercise godliness because of it will inherit His promises.

I don't see any other eschatological (life to come) themes. I definitely see not a thing about universal reconciliation.

Dave, I respectfully submit you are reading more than what is there.

I wrote:
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.

You replied:
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."

I don't find anything in the above verses that could possibly suggest John had any of these things in mind.

Could you pointing them out to me?

If John had written
10 "The one who believes has the testimony in himself;---but non-Christians don't need this---the one who does not believe God has made him a liar---but God will forgive him for being a liar after he dies since all people are allowed to reject the truth now, tell and believe lies, and still be saved---
11 [And] God has given us eternal life---"us" is for Christians only but God will give this 'life' to all other people later, people who don't have or need to believe in Jesus or who may even hate God now---and this life is in His Son---but this applies only for those who believe in Jesus in this life, who God "specially saves now"---
12 He who has the Son has the life---meaning, just for all who become Christians before they die---the who does not have the Son of God does not have the life---remember? you can get that 'life' later. "You don't need to 'HAVE' Jesus" or to be godly now to be saved because God will save all after they die by sending them (you) to Hell for a while as NOT EVERYONE has to believe in Jesus or to be saved in particular: That's only for Christians. It's okay with God to be a liar and to reject Jesus now. Only God's 'special Christians' have to be godly and tell the truth and believe in the truth. Only 'they' have to hope in Him. Don't worry about it! You'll be just fine."

But he didn't write that, Dave....

Rick

Post by **__id_1679** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:40 am

Danny,

Quote: "Do you believe then that God pre-determined who would be saved?"

Yes! So does that make me a Calvinist? Or is it that maybe Calvin was right in this instance? Or are we simply saying the salvation of those in Christ are an elect class in contrast to the wicked? Did God pre-destine the wicked to Gehenna in your view? Did God predetermine to save only Noah and his family from the Flood?

Quote: " I believe that the existence of evil in mankind is a by-product of free-will which, in turn, is necessary for us to be able to be honestly be loved by God and to honestly love Him in return."

So are you saying [/b] for love between man and God to exist, evil was necessary?

Quote: "I don't so much assume that he must, but that He wants to and is able to."

I don't think you are being consistant. If your view understands God is the savior of "all" men and not every man is saved, even though He has both the will, desire and power to save "all" men, and yet if even one is lost, then either God is a failure, then Satan wins. If not then He must save every man! Therefore, it appears in your view, He will save all, because He must save all. Is this correct?

Post by **_Homer** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:34 am

Great post Rick! Good to see a passage exegeted.

Dave,

You wrote:

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.

And here is the problem. "Savior" is soter, a noun. The Universalists seem to read it as a verb. Savior is a name, just as Lord is a name. He is both Lord and Savior right now for everyone. A policeman (name) is a policeman of all who are in his area of assignment, but he only polices (verb) certain persons who break the law. Perhaps this will clear things up.

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:05 am

Quote: "Do you believe then that God pre-determined who would be saved?"

Yes! So does that make me a Calvinist? Or is it that maybe Calvin was right in this instance?

It does appear to make you a Calvinist. That's OK, I just think we should all have our cards on the table.

Thank you again for your straight-forward answers.

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that:

a) All people will not be saved.
b) It was never God's intention to save all people.
c) God pre-determined who would be saved.

I assume then that you also believe that if God pre-determined who would be saved, it means He pre-determined who would not be saved. Is this assumption correct?

Did God pre-destine the wicked to Gehenna in your view?

In order to answer that question I would need to explain my understanding of Gehenna, which could become quite lengthy. Suffice it to say that I believe when Jesus spoke of Gehenna He was speaking to the Jewish establishment (Temple officials, Pharisees, etc.) of impending ruination, which was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Gehenna (as you probably know) was the garbage dump of Jerusalem and, therefore, a place of uncleanness. It was also a place with a ignomous history. The Jews of Jesus' day would have clearly understood the metaphor of Gehenna.

So, to answer your question; no, I don't believe God predestined the wicked to Gehenna. In fact, He warned them to repent of their course of action in hopes of sparing them from what occurred in 70 A.D.

Did God predetermine to save only Noah and his family from the Flood?

I don't believe that the Flood story is a literal historical account, but rather an "epic myth" designed to convey certain values to the Hebrews. The story itself seems to indicate that the wicked had the option of repenting, however.

So are you saying for love between man and God to exist, evil was necessary?

Not quite. I'm saying that for love between man and God to exist, man must be able to choose to love God. Otherwise, it's a sham. However, in order to be able to freely choose to love God and live in relationship with Him, one must also be able to freely choose to not love God and to turn away from relationship with Him. It is in the turning away from Him that human evil emerges.

Quote: "I don't so much assume that he must, but that He wants to and is able to."

I don't think you are being consistant. If your view understands God is the savior of "all" men and not every man is saved, even though He has both the will, desire and power to save "all" men, and yet if even one is lost, then either God is a failure, then Satan wins. If not then He must save every man! Therefore, it appears in your view, He will save all, because He must save all. Is this correct?

I think you are trying to put the cart before the horse. As I said before, scripture tells me that He wants to save all and is able to save all. Therefore I believe He will save all. It's as simple as that. I am in no position to tell God what He must do, only to believe what He has said. If God had said He didn't want to save all or wasn't able to save all, that would be a different matter (and He would be a much different God).

Post by **_Rick_C** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:35 am

Homer,

Good post you too. (Actually, I struggle a lot with languages...just can't seem to remember the rules of grammar & what-not. Never could for some reason). "NOUN"...yeah, that's what I was looking for!

I'm wondering about an illustration. Okay:
My supervisor at work (though I just got laid off).
Anyway, I got initially hired through a temporary service. Later, I got hired in as a regular full time employee. They pick & choose on who they want to hire from the temps based on performance, attendance, etc.

I had the same supervisor before and after I was hired full time. But technically speaking, he wasn't my supervisor malista (chiefly, in particular, specially) when I was a temp. (That was someone else I barely knew who worked in an office in another town).

It wasn't till they asked and I accepted becoming a full time employee that he really was my supervisor, malista (especially, in particular; thus, effectually). After really hired in...I had access to all the company benefits that I didn't have before.

My supervisor had the over-watch of the entire plant, the production, and everyone in it. But not every employee was really "his".....

This illustration may not apply to the discussion, I don't know?

Btw, on malista.
One of the big shot Greek experts on the B-Greek mailing list, a guy named "Conrad", said, "The word essentially means: 'more than anything else'."

Rick