1 Timothy 4:10

[Guest]

Bob & Danny,

Bob,

Methinks Danny's 'baiting you' with Talbott's ideas!
Which reminds me.

Danny,

Do you think a good way to find out what the Bible teaches is to compare certain propositions taken from certain systematic theologies and pitting them against one another?

I won't answer the stuff you asked me (same you asked Bob). My reason is: Biblical Theology. If you know what it is? I believe in it strongly and was thinking about a new thread on it. Biblical theology isn't the same thing as systematic theology. I believe we have do do it first. Exegesis of [entire] passages is part of Biblical Theology but not all of it.

I don't recall ever seeing verse-by-verse exegesis of entire and relevant passages by a CU poster since joining this forum. On 1 Corinthians 15...I don't think they could get past verse 12 to their prooftexts (vs. 22 and 28B) because at that point, what was on Paul's mind had nothing whatever to do with 'universalism' neither ancient nor modern (leave alone the resurrection of unbelievers)!

But, well, that's another thread.....

What did you think of my post to Dave? (though I already saw where you admit 1 Timothy 4:10 doesn't specifically teach universalism). That's enough for me (Bob & Homer) to claim the victory on this thread. But I'll give you another chance...or so.

I still owe you a "malista" rebuttal reply. I have plenty of ammo but will keep it short, extending a little mercy on you.... hahaha
Rick

[Guest]

That's enough for me (Bob & Homer) to claim the victory on this thread.

I hope by that, Rick, you meant came to know more truth, because if you meant winning an argument, all you did was demonstrate a need for for maturing. (in my opinion).

Does anyone else notice the back and forth on this, where one side says "but it doesn't preclude UR" and the other side "but it doesn't require UR". It's like both sides are talking past each other. On another thread one side says "the Bible nowhere says we will have a second chance after death for salvation", but the other side counters "but the Bible nowhere says we will NOT have a second chance for salvation".

What incredibly useful dialog

Homer, the noun Saviour is not (necessarily) a name, it can be used as a noun describing one who performs acts of saving (a verb).

So what I got out of this thread is that 1 Tim. 4:10 could mean that God (one who performs acts of salvation or deliverance) is this for all people, but in a special way for those who place their faith in Him (in that He delivers them from sin and the consequences of those sins).

Or it could mean that God is in the process (present tense ) of saving all persons, and this is in some sense especially true for those who are (present tense) believing in Him for deliverance from sin.

I think all would agree that the main point of this passage is not to teach universalism. But it is an interesting verse, none the less.

So is that the "victory" you were speaking of Rick?

In hopes of a dialog where people actually wanted to learn and grow rather win a debate!

Blessings,

Mike

[AVoice]

Danny,

Qoute: "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"...

Not everyone who acknowlages the Lordship of Jesus will be saved. God indeed has the desire and the ability, no question here. However, I do believe you are super- imposing your beliefs about God's character into what we read in scripture. And to a degree, we all do. Fundamentaly, you are saying God must save every man. Folowing your train of thought
now on several posts, whether intended or not, the "must" is clearly there.

There is also a veiled accusation that if God does not save every man according to your understanding of the relavent scriptures under discussion, then He is unjust. He is unjust for two reasons. I've seen this repeated over and over by those holding a CU position;

1) For God to be just in the CU position, all judgement must be proportional to fit the "crime". Eternal suffering/annilhilation for temporal
sin under the CU belief system is cosmic overkill.

2) All forms of God's justice are reformatory/remedial/corrective. The divine intention is that all humanity will be reconciled to God, and with enough "pressure", will repent, (even after death by spending some time in the LOF ).

Not one person holding the CU position has given us a definition of their view of what they mean by "proportional" justice. They have given us all kinds of emotional rhetoric and appeals to the love of God. They have cried "foul" if God is presented as less than loving in character, (as if to imply love is His only character quality), if any of His judgements are eternal, unending and final without remedy. Ultimate reconcilliation under this view has clearly been portrayed within the CU system as a dogmatic mandate. Anything less, implies God is not worthy of their worship.

The CU position IMO, does violence to the Holiness of God. Often when God expresses Himself in scripture, "I will show myself Holy, so that you may know",... His judicial wrath is being expressed and imposed upon those in rebellion. Divine destruction usually follows.Sin is rebellion against a Holy God. As I've stated before, when we sin, we are saying "no" to the Supreme King of the Universe. We are saying "your ways are not good" in essence. You may say; " yes, God has the right to punsh sin, but only up to a point and within limits". I impose no such limits upon God. He has the right to do according to His will and pleasure.

The CU positon is also potentially dangerous, IMO. Not only does it misrepresent God's Holiness and has a low view of our sin, it gives the weak implied permission to go out and sin without limit, because in the end, they will be saved anyway! You may argue against this conclusion. But you must confess, some people will see it this way. Therefore, the CU postion is not the best witness for Christ, IMO.

In conclusion, IMO, you cannot make God's desire that people reform their lives as a proof text that all will be saved in the end. You cannot assume or demonstrate from scripture or fact, (nor have you) that all persons will choose to be reformed, reconciled etc, or that no decision
is final! The proper view of God's justice CU's conviently ignore, is the fact that it is primarily penal, not reformatory. A reformatory view of God's justice has some very serious implications. It is above all else, contradictory to the Vicarious Atonement of Jesus' substitutionary death on behalf of sinners. Here is where most of all, the CU position teters upon being heretical and therefore IMO, to be rejected.

In Jesus,
Bob

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

Methinks Danny's 'baiting you' with Talbott's ideas!

Actually, that's not what I'm doing. I'm not that devious. Bob has made it clear that he doesn't believe in CU; I'm trying to understand what it is he does believe. The conclusion I'm coming to is that we have radically different views of God's character; almost to the point of saying we use the same Bible and same Christian language but actually believe in two different Gods.

But I honestly want to understand where Bob is coming from.


I must admit Rick, I've been disturbed throughout these discussions at how often I've felt like the recipient of smear tactics. Rather than just discuss the theological issues at hand I (and other believers in Universal Reconciliation) have been the brunt of accusation of our motives, guilt-by-association, put-downs of our ability to study scripture, etc. Oftentimes these smears have not been accompanies by any specific examples; they're just generalized statements. I understand that such tactics are part and parcel of online discussion forums, but it is disappointing nonetheless.

A short while back, I posted a rather pointed rebuttal at Bob, but if you notice, I stuck to responding to what Bob had actually written and tried to point out some of the errors in his assertions. I did not feel the need to attack him personally, question his motives, use guilt-by-association, insinuate that he doesn't know how to study his Bible, etc.

Such tactics can be useful in debates, but is that what we're doing here? I participate in these forums out of a desire to learn and to share what I've learned.

I won't answer the stuff you asked me (same you asked Bob). My reason is: Biblical Theology. If you know what it is?

That's a shame because it shuts down dialog. Yes, I'm familiar with Biblical Theology. You may have noticed that I've often responded to given "proof-texts" by explaining their historical context.

Rick, I really do read the Bible as story and as progressive revelation of who God is and what His plan is. I believe in CU because I see it woven intrisically throughout that story; not because I've gathered some proof-texts that make me feel good.

I don't recall ever seeing verse-by-verse exegesis of entire and relevant passages by a CU poster since joining this forum.

I have done this in the past. The struggle that I have is time. I'm often frustrated by how much I would like to say vs. how much I actually have time to say.

What did you think of my post to Dave? (though I already saw where you admit 1 Timothy 4:10 doesn't specifically teach universalism).

There you go, putting words into my mouth. You know darn well Rick that from the beginning of this thread I have maintained that 1 Timothy 4:10 does support a Christian Universalist view. What you are alluding to is that I answered your question of whether 1 TImothy 4 specifically taught that God will save unbelievers after they die. I answered that it does not specifically state this or the opposite [that God will only save unbelievers before they die) but that it does clearly state that all will be saved. Why did you mis-state my answer?

That's enough for me (Bob & Homer) to claim the victory on this thread.

It's a cheap victory if it can only be won using a straw-man tactic. Also, I didn't realize that the point of this was victory. I thought it was dialog. I've stated from the beginning that I'm not interested in winning anyone over to my view; only that CU be given a fair hearing.


Back to the topic at hand:

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.

I can't help but notice that in your exegesis and in this example you have shifted the meaning of malista to ultimately mean effectually. In doing so, it appears to me that you have done exactly what you've been accusing CU proponents of doing, which is choosing the more obscure definition of a word. Earlier I provided a list of the NT scriptures that use malista. Can you show how your meaning of effectually makes sense in those verses?

Or are you still not answering my questions?


P.S.

I'm very sorry to hear that you got laid off. I've been there and I know how disappointing it is.

[Guest]

Nice speech Bob, and of course we disagree on numerous points, all of which have already been discussed.

So, back to my question, 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?

[AVoice]

Danny,

Quote: "So, back to my question, 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?"

Let me try and clarify something. All of us have a view of what is meant by God's "predetermination" as we encounter the term in scripture. All of us have a view of what predestination, free will, the sovergnty of God,
and how our differing ideas play a role in our understanding of God's character. So, it would become necessary for each of us to "unpack" what we mean when we say God indeed does predetermine certain things. For example, from the beginning, God predetermined that if Adam ate from a certain Tree, he would die. God also predetermined that He would send the Christ in time to be the Savior of all men. Even though God knew the outcome of Adam's choice, and He "predetermined" what the effects of his choices would be, God nevertheless gave Adam the relative freedom to decide between two alternatives. Conversly, He also foreknows who would be saved, as well as those who would not, as I understand the word to teach. I am not a "hard-determinist". To be a "hard determinist" is contrary to free will. Although our 'free will' is limited by the soverignty of God and we are not autonomous, I don't believe He has decided in advance or outside the parview of His foreknowlage who will or won't be saved. I am not a Calvinist.
Its kind of ironic you ask me this though. In the CU positon, God is a hard-determinist as I see it. I do not believe Heaven is the place where God 'overpowers" the will of His enemies and forces them into it.
The language Paul uses in the several I Cor. passages being discussed here, are of the subjugation of Christ's enemies. Not their humble willing submission of their wills. Do you see yourself as the Lord's "footstool" or His friend?

[Guest]

Family Bible Fellowship Forum
Miscellaneous Theological Topics
Topic: 1 Tim 4:10

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" {and this, after offering an exegesis of the verse and passage twice}.

Your 'obvious and logical conclusion' may be apparent and reasonable to you. But to say it is derived or taken from Paul's thought hasn't been demonstrated at all.

To which Danny replied:
You bring up an interesting point regarding the lack of a scripture which explicitly states that "unbelievers will experience that salvation after they die."

I took Danny's statement as an admission that 1 Timothy 4:10 doesn't teach or support post mortem salvation and/or the CU (Christian Univeralist) doctrine. I absolutely agree with Danny that there isn't "a scripture" that explicitly teaches universalism.

1. Numerous scriptures however explicitly state that all will be saved.

2. 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.

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

Comments by number:
1. Whether other Scriptures [other than 1 Timothy 4:10] teach universalism, that 'all will be saved' is another topic. If, in fact, other verses (though no verse is an island standing by itself) could be demonstrated to teach universalism: Regarding 1 Tim 4:10 it is "Case Closed". It doesn't teach it.

2. The three propositions Danny presented and conclusions that could possibly be drawn from them have no bearing on this thread's discussion of 1 Tim 4:10. Furthermore, Danny's Basic Premise that 'all will be saved' in a way that differs from how all Christians---which are, and always have been, any and all people who came to believe God [through Christ] is their Savior----is questionable. Again, as Danny said, "You bring up an interesting point regarding the lack of a scripture which explicitly states that "unbelievers will experience that salvation after they die"."

3. 1 Timothy 4:10 teaches salvation is only possible to those who are believing during their lifetimes. Timothy, and all who have read or heard Paul's letter to him [including anyone who is reading this post as none of us are dead yet] can or have experienced the ONE salvation that the Bible offers from cover to cover: Salvation came, and always has come, to living people. This deserves a new thread: "Preaching the gospel to corpses"......

Re: my level of maturity.
I admit I'm not so 'Stoic' that I express no emotion when I feel I've won something, especially an argument in formal debate. Paul once asked some folks if they would prefer it if he came to them "with a gentle spirit or with a whip?" How immature of the Apostle.......

Re: talking past each other.
Family Bible Fellowship Forum
Miscellaneous Theological Topics
Topic: 1 Tim 4:10....
Not "a,b,c"...not the word "all" in the Bible, not "1 Timothy 4:10 doesn't explicitly teach universalism but others do", not who's mature or isn't, not comments in reply to about who's mature or isn't, not if Calvin or Bob or whoever thinks God pre-determined this, that, or the other.

Re: Is it about Truth and/or learning it or more about it---OR---winning a debate?
Humanly speaking: Both (for me). The recent 'CU (Christian Universalism) Debate' threads have had about 8,000 hits! If just one person comes to see CU is false or comes to believe they won't have a second chance to become a Christian after they've "passed through the funeral home" (six feet under, or, could be found in an urn, as the case may be)---Rick_C and Bob & Homer, will be very glad.

I've heard the Gospel preached at funerals. The guy or gal in the casket didn't hear it....

For readers of this thread:
If anyone who is "riding the fence" on CU (Christian Universalist beliefs) and realizes that the preaching Gospel ("proclaiming the Good News") about Jesus is the ONLY way people can learn about God and then and therefore, can come to believe; I'd be extremely satisfied (see Romans 10:8ff).

If any said unbelieving person comes to believe God is their Savior [through Jesus], bringing themselves under the Blessed Lordship of Christ as one of His Believing-People; not only myself and Bob & Homer will be elated---all of the angels of God will REJOICE over one sinner who repents!

Rick

P.S. Seeing as I've given exegesis of 1 Timothy 4:10 twice---and each of my points weren't replied to malista (in particular); and seeing it has been acknowledged that this verse demonstrates Paul was NOT teaching universalism; for all intents and purposes this thread has reached its course, imo, though I and we could post more on the verse itself; like with my rebuttal to Danny's ideas on "malista" that I haven't got to yet. Considering what has been covered and the conclusions that have been drawn; it appears to me the thread is essentially over.

[AVoice]

To the Audience at Large.

Several threads have been created (to my disapointment btw) in an atempt for CU's to establish from scripture their position, that in the 'end all will be saved', none shall perish, hell is inconsistant with a God who is love, etc. etc. etc....

With regard to the 'wicked', no one has clearly demonstrated from the Word in my mind anyway the following;

1) that the sins of the wicked will be forgiven in the afterlife

2) that the wicked are able to repent in the afterlife

3) that the wicked will accept Jesus in the afterlife

4) that the wicked will try avoiding judgement

5) that the wicked will have sin 'conditioned' out of them in the LOF

6) that the wicked will even get out of the LOF

7) that the wicked wil have their names re-written in the Book of Life

8 that the God of all creation will repent of His final judgement

None of the claims of CU's is supported by scripture, faith or reason. That God will carry out His justice upon the wicked eternally and without remedy, has both scriptural support and a very long history of belief within the Orthodox Christian community. By saying this, I am not asserting we who hold a more 'traditional' conservative view, are always right either. All of us have had to re-tune and re-think what we believe from time to time. However, there are some views out there masquerading as Christian. I believe this view is one of them. And like the apostle John declares, we are to 'test the spirits' and see whether they are of God. Many decievers have gone out into the world and have confused many. I admit at one time in my early years, it happened to me. My suggestion to anyone on the fence about Christian Universalisim is to throughly check it out. There is a lot of material availeable, pro and con from both sides of the aisle. I do not question the integrety or sincerity of those who hold to the CU position. I just believe they are sincerley wrong. Check it out!

In Jesus,
Bob

[Guest]

I absolutely agree with Danny that there isn't "a scripture" that explicitly teaches universalism.

I'm stunned and amazed. You intentionally mis-stated my position so that you could claim a victory (aka a "straw man" tactic - which is about the lamest trick in the book). So I called you on it and, once again, stated my position in no uncertain terms, but you intentionally mis-stated it again!

Here's what I just posted prior to your last post:

There you go, putting words into my mouth. You know darn well Rick that from the beginning of this thread I have maintained that 1 Timothy 4:10 does support a Christian Universalist view. What you are alluding to is that I answered your question of whether 1 TImothy 4 specifically taught that God will save unbelievers after they die. I answered that it does not specifically state this or the opposite [that God will only save unbelievers before they die) but that it does clearly state that all will be saved. Why did you mis-state my answer?

If I believe, as I stated here, that 1 Timothy 4:10 clearly states that all will be saved, then I'm saying that it explicitly teaches universalism. Do you consider the stakes so high of "winning" this "debate" that you're willing to twist someone's words in order to claim "victory"? That goes beyond questionable tactics into outright deception.

Like I said, I'm stunned and amazed and very disappointed.

Considering what has been covered and the conclusions that have been drawn; it appears to me the thread is essentially over.

Maybe for you. It's up to the others to decide for themselves. Personally, I'm so disgusted that I think I'm going to go find something better to do with my time for a while.

Sorry Bob, I was enjoying the dialog we were beginning to have and I appreciated your "unpacking" of your position in your last post. It gave me a better understanding of where you're coming from.

I'd like to close, and sign off, by quoting something that I first read in the Introduction to Steve Gregg's Revelation: Four Views. Although the quote pertains to eschatology, I think it can be applied here as well and in a great many other theological contexts. I've tried to keep it in mind whenever posting here:

"... none of these schools of interpretation can claim any monopoly on scholarship or faith. Each group numbers many fine scholars and devout Christian believers. Therefore complete certainty in regard to the interpretation of the Apocalypse [or many other things - D] is not to be had. It is our duty to do the best we can, to study the various systems and accept the view that seems to us right, but always with a certain amount of reservation and of respect for the opinions of others."
- Albertus Pieters

[AVoice]

Danny,

Quote: " Sorry Bob, I was enjoying the dialog we were beginning to have and I appreciated your "unpacking" of your position in your last post. It gave me a better understanding of where you're coming from".

So your'e going to bail because of a dispute about being misquoted?
C'mon dude, get a hanky and blow your nose! You can't be giving up that easy.