1 Timothy 4:10

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:06 pm

Rick wrote:God's love was totally shown when He sent His Son, Jesus, to die for the sins of everyone. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (john 3:16, ESV). John didn't say "that whoever believes in him will not 'go to Hell for some indeterminate amount of time and eventually come out of Hell and, then, get eternal life". He said whoever believes in Him will not perish and will have everlasting life.
What do you think "will not perish" means? "Will not go into everlasting torment"? Or maybe "will not be wiped out of existence"?
Whoever winds up in Hell won't have a second life or a second chance to get out, the Bible says.


The Bible nowhere says it. It is Rick who says it.
Paidion, if you want to keep teaching that people they can live in sin, that they can falsely accuse God by judging His character, that they can even hate Him, and still go to Heaven anyway, that's your biznis.
It's also everyone else's business. Sooner or later we will know the loving character of God as it really is! Did you read Mike's testimony?
mdh wrote:I can tell you that for most of my life I rejected God because of the teaching of Hell. Just could not believe such a God could exist.
Mike is an example such as I have described in a previous post. It's the teaching that God retributively sends people to eternal torment with no purpose whatever except to make them suffer, which causes people to reject God. Few people can believe that such a God exists. "If He does," they say, "I want nothing to do with Him."

There are countless people who have hated God and railed against them. Yet many of them have repented and submitted to Him. There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that that repentance cannot occur after these rebels are resurrected. The idea that they can't is purely a man-made concept.

Augustine was the first in the church to promote the concept of eternal torment. He was also the first in the church to put "heretics" to death.
By doing so, he supposed that he was doing God a service (like the apostle Paul before his repentance). Augustine thought putting the heretics to death was a minor thing compared to allowing them to live and to deceive others so that they would end up in eternal misery also.

I think there are a significant number of retributivists today who also would be glad to put "heretics" to death ---- if they could get away with it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

__id_1679
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1679 » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:49 am

Paidion,

Quote: "What do you think "will not perish" means? "Will not go into everlasting torment"? Or maybe "will not be wiped out of existence"?

What do you think it means Don? Obviously, we have a different take of what "perish" means. I think Rick, Homer and my self have expressed what the term means. You keep "hammering" upon a 'torment' motif as if the torment of eternal punishment were a picture in your mind of a God who derives some sort of sadistic pleasure from "flame broiling" people.
If this is what you think we believe, you are sadly mistaken. You know that God "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked". So why are you insisting we hold this kind of sadistic view of God?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1679
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1679 » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:59 am

Paidion,

Quote: "Mike is an example such as I have described in a previous post. It's the teaching that God retributively sends people to eternal torment with no purpose whatever except to make them suffer, which causes people to reject God."

Where do you derive "no purpose" from Don? You been spending too much time in Dante's Inferno? I think CU's fail in recognizing the negative side of God's love. A love that does not coerce but persuades. A love that sets a person free. Un- requited love Don. Yeah, its poetic. But agape love is that kind of love. It places no demands to be loved back. Hell is where people can have their wills to not love God met, IMO. Otherwise you have a "Lenny" kind of love that "crushes". Ever see Of Mice and Men?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:13 am

Paidion,
You wrote:What do you think "will not perish" means? "Will not go into everlasting torment"? Or maybe "will not be wiped out of existence"?
I thought you knew my position. I'm all but convinced of "Conditional Immortality". There might be an exception with the devil and the beast (which could represent several things). I'm open to all views, though the more I learn about universalism, the less merit I think it has.
I wrote:Whoever winds up in Hell won't have a second life or a second chance to get out, the Bible says.

You replied:
The Bible nowhere says it. It is Rick who says it.
The Bible teaches two lives and two deaths.
1. This present life and eternal life to come (all share the first, only believers the second).
2. Physical death and The Second Death (all share the first, only unbelievers the second).

Show me a verse that teaches "reincarnation" or some kind of "second life" or "second chance" people will get after they die. Explain Karma as a Christian doctrine! (I think yer mixing up Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity there, Don).
You also wrote:It's the teaching that God retributively sends people to eternal torment with no purpose whatever except to make them suffer, which causes people to reject God. Few people can believe that such a God exists. "If He does," they say, "I want nothing to do with Him."
I used to say the same thing about being punished forever and ever (it was in my last post). Most people know the purpose of Hell is for the punishment of their sins. I'd say even with people who know virtually nothing about the Bible or Christianity. And you're right that most people think it will be forever and ever.

The fact that people do this can't be used in debate as a proof of that universalism is true, I must point out. Nor could it be used to prove conditional immortality....

Regardless of what any person's view about Hell is, they need to know more about the Bible than "Hell is a place of punishment" to understand God!

And anyone who is satisfied to complain about Hell hasn't done much research. Just like anyone else, they need to seek God if they want to find Him! But if a person is satisfied with complaining...even if they're complaining about something legitimate...well, complaining about a problem indicates there IS a problem that needs a solution!

Don, I had to 'overcome' eternal torment teaching in my life too! I had one panic attack in my whole life and thought I was REALLY GONNA DIE. During it I said to God, "If you want me to die and go to Hell, fine. If you want to go help those 'born again Christians' and let me be, okay. If you're only the God of 'those (Christian) people' leave me alone! and I won't bother You any more. But if you're on my side in any way, I need help from some place NOW."

After about 2 hours of my (SITTING) pulse being 190 (one hundred ninety) beats a minute and feeling like my chest was going to EXPLODE; in about 30 minutes my pulse dropped to 95...I went to sleep and woke up feeling better.

Several months later I became a Christian while still believing in 'eternal torment'. Hell isn't the only thing about God or the Bible. After getting a Bible and reading it non-stop for about 3 weeks, 6-8 hours a day, I believed in Jesus.

It wasn't till about 4 years ago or so that I began to 'leave' the eternal torment teaching. Since joining these debates I'm convinced of 'conditional immortality' more and more as I study.

Now, I could have kept on saying, "Okay, God, burn me in Hell!"...to this very day! Or I could have sought and found Him like I did, "I need Your help." People who complain about Hell or going to Hell ain't going far enough. If they don't want to go there they need to find out how not to!

As the 12-Step folks say, "You're either a part of the problem or you're a part of the solution."
Continuing, you wrote:There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that that repentance cannot occur after these rebels are resurrected. The idea that they can't is purely a man-made concept.
The absence of universalist teaching in Scripture is exactly why I can't accept it and why I believe it is a man-made belief system.
Augustine was the first in the church to promote the concept of eternal torment. He was also the first in the church to put "heretics" to death. By doing so, he supposed that he was doing God a service (like the apostle Paul before his repentance). Augustine thought putting the heretics to death was a minor thing compared to allowing them to live and to deceive others so that they would end up in eternal misery also.
The 'eternal torment' belief was in the Church long before Augustine. It was there about one generation after the Apostles in the Second Century when the Church had become predominantly Gentile. Augustine can probably be credited for making this doctrine 'universally accepted'. But 'eternal torment' wasn't the only Greek-influenced teaching that came into the Church after the Apostles. Universalism also entered in with Origen, who's beliefs were based in Neo-Platonist philosophy.

For now, I see the 'Gentile Greek-thinking' of these post-apostolic men bringing ideas into the Church that can't be demonstrated to be what the Jesus and Apostles believed.

However, there's evidence the Pharisees held to 'eternal torment' (according to Josephus, this is what they believed). Jesus possibly challenged them directly on it once. What He said isn't compatible with universalism, so never mind, another topic. Paul was a Pharisee, but I haven't found 'eternal torment' in his writings. If he ever believed in it, it seems dropped it; possibly because Jesus Himself didn't teach it. Or if Paul believed in it all his life, he didn't write about it. In his sermons in Acts he doesn't go into any details about the resurrection of the just and unjust; only saying that it will happen.

Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:53 pm

Danny, (here's the post I've owed you)....
You wrote:If we're only going to focus on the text of 1 Timothy 4:9-10, then it seems that the use of the word "especially" (malista in the Greek) is of paramount importance. Malista means most of all; in the greatest degree; more of the same. Paul uses the word again in 2 Timothy 4:13 when he writes, "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments." The parchments were a subset of the scrolls. Paul wants the scrolls and most of all the parchments. This is consistent with how malista is used everywhere else in the NT (Acts 20:38; 25:26; 26:3; Gal 6:10; Phil 4:22; 1 Tim 5:8, 17; Titus 1:10; Philemon 16 and 2 Peter 2:10).


Malista, (Greek, "especially, specially, in particular, chiefly, most of all, more than anything else" etc.).

Texts:
1 Tim 4:10, NASB
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.

The same word is used below (in bold).
2 Tim 4:13, NRSV
When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.
2 Tim 4:13, NKJV
Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come--and the books, especially the parchments.


Comments:
You said, "The parchments were a subset of the scrolls. Paul wants the scrolls and most of all the parchments."

First, parchments and scrolls (or books) aren't the same things (you wrote that parchments were a "subset of scrolls"). The following articles demonstrate they aren't the same.

[quote="Three sources on "and the books, especially the parchments" (2 Tim 4:13b)"]Even more than the cloak, Paul wanted his scrolls and the parchments. Paul's arrest may have occurred so suddenly that he was not allowed to return home to gather his personal belongings. The scrolls would have included parts of the Old Testament The parchments (Greek membranas) were very likely parchments or codices, frequently used in the first century for notebooks, memoranda, or first drafts of literary works. Perhaps these parchments were drafts or copies of some of Paul's letters. (Source, Life Application Study Bible Commentary).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us mention here an interesting development concerning paper and bookmaking that may also have affected the development of the canon. At least some of the first New Testament writings may have existed in a roll or scroll form if Paul "books" and parchments mentioned in II Timothy (4:13) were New Testament. But we are not at all sure these were New Testament writings. These parchment may had been Old Testament scrolls Paul wanted to use in his defense. As Alands has pointed out, "All the literature of the period was written on scrolls (including Jewish literature . . .); yet apparently from the very beginning Christians did not use scrolls format for their writing, but rather the codex." (The codex is a "leaf" formed booklet.) They note that only four of the early known papyri were scrolls, and these four were "either opisthographs or written on used material." Roberts and Skeats suggest the papyrus codex was probably used by Christians before 100 A.D. The reason for this change to codies is unclear. It may have been for economic reasons (both sides could be written on; their use of abbreviations show the scribe wanted to shortened the text), convenience in paging back and forth in the writings, or to break from the Jewish use of scrolls, etc. (Source, The New Testament Canon, by Leland M. Haines).

By this time, Paul has already sent Tychichus to Ephesus (@ Tim 4:12). He now urges Timothy to bring Mark with him, " for he is very useful in my ministry" (2 Tim 4:11). But most important of all, Timothy is instructed to bring the "book-carrier" that Paul "left with Carpus in Troas, and also the books, and above all the parchements" (2 Tim) 4:13. As Skeat has argued these parchments were not scrolls, but parchement leaves---to be sewn in the form of a codex (T.C. Skeat, "Especially the Parchments: A Note on 2 Timothy 4:13. JTS n.s. 30 [1979] pp. 173-177).
(Source, The Unity of the Bible: Exploring the Beauty and Structure iof the Bible, by Duane L. Christensen, p. 24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Birth of the Codex"
Society of Biblical Literature

We take for granted the book as the standard physical medium for any extended piece of text, failing to recognize that it was an innovation developed thousands of years after the invention of writing. The book assembles a set of leaves, written on both sides and bound together at the folds to form a multi-page codex, thus making the text accessible at a multitude of entry points and providing a portable, compact, and user-friendly reading device.

The precise origins of the codex are not altogether clear, but its precursors were probably wax tablets, often hinged together, known to exist at least as early as the first century BCE. Wax tablets were handy for note taking and letter drafting, and they even afforded the opportunity for reuse, if desired. It was not a big leap to substitute other materials that benefited equally from the codex form. Letters and eventually literary compositions benefited from the advantages of the codex. 2 Tim 4:13 records Paul's request for "ta biblia, malista tas membranas" variously translated "the scrolls and parchments" (NIV) or "my books and papers" (NLT).

Contrast this with the scrolls used by the Jewish communities at the time of Jesus. Jesus himself found the passage Isa 61:1-2 in a scroll used at the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-20). The 800+ Jewish documents found at Qumran were written on scrolls. While there are indications that readers acquired great dexterity in manipulating scrolls, they were no match for the codex. As Callimachus, a cataloguer of books at the great library of Alexandria, is reported to have said, "A big roll is a big nuisance."

Recognizing the codex as a reader-friendly medium, and undoubtedly seeing it as an ideal format for compiling letters, the early Christians were quick to collect Paul's letters in this form. The earliest manuscript containing substantial portions of New Testament text is Papyrus 46 (now in Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, and the University of Michigan). Eighty-six of the original 104 leaves of the codex survive today, complete with page numbers and some additional readers' aids. The manuscript dates from approximately 200 CE. Although a date as early as the late first century CE has recently been suggested,[7] I, and many others, still prefer the 200 date. (Source, Society of Biblical Literature, SBL Forum, "The Myth of the Paperless Church: Codex, Cognition, and Christianity").[/quote]

More comments:
Parchments and scrolls can be said to be "writing materials" in the same way believing people and unbelieving people can be said to be "people". Paul, in 1 Tim 4:10 and 2 Tim 4:13 clearly distinguished between:
A. "all people" believers and unbelievers alike/scrolls, and,
B. "especially those who are believing" (believers in particular)/parchments.

2 Timothy 4:13 confirms Paul was talking about two classes of people in 1 Timothy 4:10. That, God is really and presently the Savior of all who are believing while remaining the God who is the Savior of unbelievers as well; providing they come into to the special, particular, class of people whom God actually saves (in the present tense), which is believers.
From the B-Greek Mailing List, a post & reply by Carl Conrad, who wrote:At 12:37 PM -0500 12/3/03, Doug Hoxworth wrote:
George W. Knight's commentary in the NIGTC series suggested (derived from a study done by T. C. Skeats in the April 1979 issue of the Journal of Theological studies pp. 173ff entitled "Especially the Parchments") that MALISTA can have the meaning of 'namely' rather than 'especially'. In other words that MALISTA can be used to further define what someone is talking about (e.g., epexegetical). is this true?

Carl Conrad replied:
It's not indicated in the lexica, but inasmuch as MALISTA means,
essentially, "more than anything else," it seems to me that it's not much of an extension to say that it means "just that," or perhaps, "and to be precise"
--like German "zwar."

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
As Conrad points out, if malista meant "just that" or "and to be precise"(and in another B-Greek post it was asked if it could mean "namely"); 1 Timothy would read:
A. 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, [and] just [that] of believers, OR,
B. ....God, who is the Savior of all men, and to be precise of believers, OR,
C. ....God, who is the Savior of all men, namely of believers.

But malista doesn't meant these.

Paul's usage and meaning of malista was that the Savior-God [noun] Christians believe in, thereby being specially-saved, is the Savior-God [noun] Who is and remains the potential and effectual Savior of all people; though this same God "preserves (saves) the lives" of every person by 'sending his rains', 'in Him we [believers & unbelievers alike] live and move and have our being'.

God gives Billy Graham and Osama bin Laden the same air to breath.
But he doesn't save the souls of "all people" like bin Laden, till they "are believing" (as 1 Tim 4:10 reads literally).

I've studied some of the other verses you cited on malista. Every one of them show and indicate "clear distinctions" (specifically different classes) as I've demonstrated in this post.

There ya go, Danny!
Thanks for reading,
Rick

P.S. Is this thread over now?
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_Mort_Coyle
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by _Mort_Coyle » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:30 pm

So Rick, are you positing that when Paul tells Timothy to bring his cloak, books and, especially the parchments, he really means "bring just the parchments"?!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:05 pm

Danny,

No, I wasn't. Not at all!

I was just editing my post when you posted.
(You'll prolly need to read it again, sorry about that)....
I had most of it ready last week...but didn't get to it till today.....
After you read it again...then ask or reply...I'll be back if you think the thread needs to go on. I can give one more example if need be. But like I said, each and every time the word is used it clearly points to 'separated classes' or 'different things or people'!

L8r,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:34 pm

Rick wrote:2 Timothy 4:13 confirms Paul was talking about two classes of people in 1 Timothy 4:10. That, God is really and presently the Savior of all who are believing while remaining the God who is the Savior of unbelievers as well; providing they come into to the special, particular, class of people whom God actually saves (in the present tense), which is believers.
Danny wrote:So Rick, are you positing that when Paul tells Timothy to bring his cloak, books and, especially the parchments, he really means "bring just the parchments"?!
It would appear from Rick's statements quoted above, that Paul wants Timothy to bring the parchments providing they come into the special, particular class of writings which Paul actually wants, which is the scrolls.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:53 pm

I didn't get this in my malista post and don't think it's been mentioned before.

I feel 1 Tim 4:10 teaches God is the:
1. physical Savior of all people; preserves or saves everyone's life (believers and unbelievers alike): food, rain, air, water, etc.).
2. spiritual Savior NOW for "those who are believing" as the text says.
3. potential spiritual Savior NOW "for those who are not yet believing" as the text says, by implication or deduction.

By 'potential' I mean POTENT. God has the power to save any and everyone spiritually (biblical salvation, the saving of one's soul). But the required thing to specially have this is current belief: present tense faith in God as one's personal and spiritual Savior.

Everyone on earth is "saved" by God in the physical sense.
Only those who are believing are "saved" in the biblical salvation sense of meaning.

Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:04 pm

Paidion,
You wrote:It would appear from Rick's statements quoted above, that Paul wants Timothy to bring the parchments providing they come into the special, particular class of writings which Paul actually wants, which is the scrolls.
Unfortunately, Don, I don't think you're following down the complete trail, the whole train of thought, kit 'n kaboodle & all, as they say.....

Danny posited that scrolls and parchments are different types ("subsets") of scrolls.
However, they're different types of "writing materials" and not the same! Parchments aren't a subset of scrolls...as the articles demonstrate.

Anyway, after re-reading the articles & my post...let me know & I'll be back. This stuff gets technical and I took the time to look into it (which was well worth the time and effort)!

Anyone,

As far as I'm concerned this thread could end. I feel Bob, Homer, and myself have made the case for a 'Non-Universalist interpretation' of 1 Tim 4:10. At some point we have to agree to disagree...so just say "when" if and when anyone's ready.

Resting his case for now, 8)
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”