As an aside, I'm amazed at the level of granularity we're getting to here! It reminds me of the fictional Church council in Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, which convenes to discuss whether or not Christ owned His own clothes.
1 Timothy 4:10
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Whether the parchments are a subset of the scrolls or the parchments are a subset of the items Paul wanted Timothy to fetch (cloak, scrolls, parchment) is inconsequential.
As an aside, I'm amazed at the level of granularity we're getting to here! It reminds me of the fictional Church council in Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, which convenes to discuss whether or not Christ owned His own clothes.
As an aside, I'm amazed at the level of granularity we're getting to here! It reminds me of the fictional Church council in Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, which convenes to discuss whether or not Christ owned His own clothes.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Danny,
Note, Readers: Danny is using a debate tactic known as a Logical Fallacy. Rather than replying to my arguments point by point, he's using a diversion tactic by attempting to divert the discussion "somewhere else".
Anyway, Danny, it was you who brought up the use of mailista in passages other than 1 Tim 4:10. And I followed up in reply and made a STRONG case against your interpretations of the word. My Major Premises, Minor Premises, and Conclusions are posted.
But for [a brief] argument's sake:
Let's go ahead and call the scrolls and parchments "items". <<< Right there, I rest my case again! An item is one thing malista (in particular); another item is another thing, malista (especially)!
Your diversion tactic didn't work!
I await your specific replies...if you have them?
Logical Fallacy Number Two, Danny.
---Danny brings up "granular" details about the word malista.
---Rick offers detailed rebuttals.
---Danny argues Rick's details remind him of something off-topic that's fictional.
---Therefore, the Universalist interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10 is correct.
Nice try, Danny. 'Didn't work!
Concluding 1 Tim 4:10 does NOT teach universalism, unrefuted and resting his case,
Rick
Oh no it is not!You wrote:Whether the parchments are a subset of the scrolls or the parchments are a subset of the items Paul wanted Timothy to fetch (cloak, scrolls, parchment) is inconsequential.
Note, Readers: Danny is using a debate tactic known as a Logical Fallacy. Rather than replying to my arguments point by point, he's using a diversion tactic by attempting to divert the discussion "somewhere else".
Anyway, Danny, it was you who brought up the use of mailista in passages other than 1 Tim 4:10. And I followed up in reply and made a STRONG case against your interpretations of the word. My Major Premises, Minor Premises, and Conclusions are posted.
But for [a brief] argument's sake:
Let's go ahead and call the scrolls and parchments "items". <<< Right there, I rest my case again! An item is one thing malista (in particular); another item is another thing, malista (especially)!
Your diversion tactic didn't work!
I await your specific replies...if you have them?
Granularity is a measure of the size of the components, or descriptions of components, that make up a system.You also wrote:As an aside, I'm amazed at the level of granularity we're getting to here! It reminds me of the fictional Church council in Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, which convenes to discuss whether or not Christ owned His own clothes.
Logical Fallacy Number Two, Danny.
---Danny brings up "granular" details about the word malista.
---Rick offers detailed rebuttals.
---Danny argues Rick's details remind him of something off-topic that's fictional.
---Therefore, the Universalist interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10 is correct.
Nice try, Danny. 'Didn't work!
Concluding 1 Tim 4:10 does NOT teach universalism, unrefuted and resting his case,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Rick,
You said in a post earlier in this thread that you were going to prove that Paul wasn't teaching modern day universalism in this (1 Tim 4:1-10) passage. Having read all your posts here, I cannot agree that you have accomplished what you set out to do. (The requirements for proof are a little higher than demonstrating the reasonableness of a position). From what I can see we are about where we started, where there are a few possibilities of what Paul had in mind when he spoke of God being the Saviour of all men.
(I know you have mentioned having the ability to know what the apostles thought and imagined - but I need more than you saying that to be convinced).
(In case you are wondering, you said in an earlier post - not sure which thread - that the early apostles never even imagined universalism)
Anyway, if you wish to declare victory, now that you've made a *strong* argument - feel free.
I find it interesting that in virtually every occurrence of the word Saviour in the NT, it seems to refer to salvation in the sense provided by Christ, as in salvation from sin. In the very same letter to Timothy the following verses are found:
What does this prove? Nothing. But it is circumstantial evidence of what might have been on Paul's mind when he spoke of God being a Saviour.
Are you right about what Paul had in mind. Quite possibly. But not definitely.
BTW Rick, I do not mean to sound like I am making fun of you in this post. I do find your posts amusing sometimes. But I can tell you are a *very* bright guy.
Blessings,
Mike
You said in a post earlier in this thread that you were going to prove that Paul wasn't teaching modern day universalism in this (1 Tim 4:1-10) passage. Having read all your posts here, I cannot agree that you have accomplished what you set out to do. (The requirements for proof are a little higher than demonstrating the reasonableness of a position). From what I can see we are about where we started, where there are a few possibilities of what Paul had in mind when he spoke of God being the Saviour of all men.
(I know you have mentioned having the ability to know what the apostles thought and imagined - but I need more than you saying that to be convinced).
(In case you are wondering, you said in an earlier post - not sure which thread - that the early apostles never even imagined universalism)
Anyway, if you wish to declare victory, now that you've made a *strong* argument - feel free.
I find it interesting that in virtually every occurrence of the word Saviour in the NT, it seems to refer to salvation in the sense provided by Christ, as in salvation from sin. In the very same letter to Timothy the following verses are found:
Here also we see God referred to as our Saviour, and in the immediate context we see how His desire is for all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. We see Christ's giving of himself as a ransom (for all).1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
What does this prove? Nothing. But it is circumstantial evidence of what might have been on Paul's mind when he spoke of God being a Saviour.
Are you right about what Paul had in mind. Quite possibly. But not definitely.
BTW Rick, I do not mean to sound like I am making fun of you in this post. I do find your posts amusing sometimes. But I can tell you are a *very* bright guy.
Blessings,
Mike
Last edited by _MLewisS on Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Of course it is. Or are you saying that Paul didn’t actually want the cloak and scrolls?Oh no it is not!
(I’m having trouble keeping a straight face with this line of dialog…)
Note to reader: Actually, I’m responding directly to Rick’s last post (before he changed it), but you’re smart enough to see that for yourself.Note, Readers: Danny is using a debate tactic known as a Logical Fallacy. Rather than replying to my arguments point by point, he's using a diversion tactic or attempting to divert the discussion "somewhere else".
I’m sorry, but I didn’t see anything particularly STRONG from you in this thread regarding the use of malista. I just went back through the entire thread to double check and, nope, I don’t see anything particularly compelling or STRONG. Is it maybe in one of the other CU threads?Anyway, Danny, it was you who brought up the use of mailista in passages other than 1 Tim 4:10. And I followed up in reply and made a STRONG case against your interpretations of the word. My Major Premises, Minor Premises, and Conclusions are posted.
I did find this in one of your posts:
Surely that’s not the STRONG case you are referring to.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.
The logic you are using here must be very advanced, because you are making no sense to me whatsoever.But for argument's sake, let's go ahead and call the scrolls and parchments as "items". <<< Right there, I rest my case again! An item is one thing malista (in particular); another item is another thing, malista (especially)!
Humor me while I make a feeble attempt at logic:
The cloak is an item.
The scrolls are an item (or a collection of items addressed as a singular item).
The parchments are an item (or a collection...)
Three items mentioned. Paul wants all three. He especially (malista) wants the parchments. The fact that he especially (malista) wants the parchments doesn't mean that he didn't actually want the other two items (cloak and scrolls).
Back to 1 Tim 4:10: Two items are mentioned: "all men" and "believers". Christ is savior of both. He is especially (malista) savior of believers. The fact that He is savior of believers doesn't mean He actually isn't savior of all men.
If Paul believes Jesus is the savior of both "all men" and "believers", which does he make a distinction using malista? Because as believers we are experiencing that salvation now, at least partially.
You stated in your previous post:
But if they "come into the special, particular class of people whom God actually saves", then He is their Savior based on their membership in that class of people. If this is true, there would be no need to even mention that Christ is the savior of all men. Paul could have saved some ink (and us a lot of time) by simply saying "God is the savior of those who believe."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.
What you're really doing here is just saying in another way what has been said by the anti-CU crowd in previous posts, which is that Jesus is potentially the Savior of all men. Maybe Paul didn't know the Greek word for potentially. Or maybe the scribe missed putting it in.
Otherwise, what you are saying is that Christ is the Savior of all men, but He isn't the Savior of all men. Unless, of course, you change the meaning of the word savior depending on who it is applied to. But that would betray a presuppositional bias.
Um, no, the thought just popped into my head while I was typing about the relationship of scrolls to parchments (or vice-versa). I thought it was mildly humorous, so mentioned it as an aside.Logical Fallacy Number Two, Danny.
---Danny brings up "granular" details about the word mailsta.
---Rick offers detailed rebuttals.
---Danny argues Rick's details remind him of something off-topic that's fictional.
---Therefore, the Universalist interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10 is correct.
Note to reader: This discussion is spread across 3 or 4 different threads, so there may be parts of this discussion that are located elsewhere.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Mike,
We've gone into that in some detail also. I've posted my thoughts about it, anyway.
In my study of 1 Tim 4:10 I found Paul writing Timothy about certain erroneous doctrinal issues that were creeping in: a. legalistic food laws, and, b. enforced asceticism (a required celibacy). The internal evidence reveals that the issues of "universalism? or no-universalism?" weren't issues for neither Paul nor Timothy---which are the specific Systematic (universalism is a systematic theology) and Dogmatic (universalism is a doctrinal or dogmatic theology) concerns of this thread.
To sum up, the internal evidence of the passage shows the issue of universalism didn't enter, nor was on, Paul's mind. If it had been he would have written to that issue specifically in at least some detail. On this thread the doctrinal and systematic theology of universalism has been debated. If Paul taught universalism it wasn't the subject of his writing Timothy. It hasn't been demonstrated that words taken from two clauses in Paul's letter to Timothy supports the dogma of universalism, nor the system of universalism. They can be "taken" to say this, in which case I submit foreign ideas have been imported into the text (though I need not say more, imo).
Re: this thread:
"I rest my case and till proven wrong; I WILL HAVE "LOST" and will post it in huge bold letters!" You have my word on that. Other than this, GET OVER IT, please,
Willing to Agree to Disagree,
being able to get sarcastic as humanly-speaking goes,
(can whine & moan & lash out with the best of them),
with the ability to ignore the same as I've been doing though tired of it,
learning something new every day,
not knowing everything,
but knows some,
Thanks,
Rick
From what I've posted, it is more than reasonable to conclude Paul didn't teach universalism. Taking all things into consideration; this has been proven to my mind. But, yes, it hasn't been proven to others, I agree.You wrote:You said in a post earlier in this thread that you were going to prove that Paul wasn't teaching modern day universalism in this (1 Tim 4:1-10) passage. Having read all your posts here, I cannot agree that you have accomplished what you set out to do. (The requirements for proof are a little higher than demonstrating the reasonableness of a position).
You wrote:From what I can see we are about where we started, where there are a few possibilities of what Paul had in mind when he spoke of God being the Saviour of all men.
We've gone into that in some detail also. I've posted my thoughts about it, anyway.
My method of biblical study and interpretation is called Biblical Theology. It focuses on the thoughts of the biblical authors as shown or expressed in their words (the Bible). A biblical theologian doesn't ask, for example, "Did Paul teach universalism or didn't he?" Rather, he/she comes to the text to see what was originally being-said and what was meant at the time of writing. When that has been determined as best can be done it is then brought over to Systematic and/or Dogmatic Theology and applied.(I know you have mentioned having the ability to know what the apostles thought and imagined - but I need more than you saying that to be convinced).
In my study of 1 Tim 4:10 I found Paul writing Timothy about certain erroneous doctrinal issues that were creeping in: a. legalistic food laws, and, b. enforced asceticism (a required celibacy). The internal evidence reveals that the issues of "universalism? or no-universalism?" weren't issues for neither Paul nor Timothy---which are the specific Systematic (universalism is a systematic theology) and Dogmatic (universalism is a doctrinal or dogmatic theology) concerns of this thread.
To sum up, the internal evidence of the passage shows the issue of universalism didn't enter, nor was on, Paul's mind. If it had been he would have written to that issue specifically in at least some detail. On this thread the doctrinal and systematic theology of universalism has been debated. If Paul taught universalism it wasn't the subject of his writing Timothy. It hasn't been demonstrated that words taken from two clauses in Paul's letter to Timothy supports the dogma of universalism, nor the system of universalism. They can be "taken" to say this, in which case I submit foreign ideas have been imported into the text (though I need not say more, imo).
I don't know what religion may have taught universalism in the first century. Chances are, they were around....You wrote:(In case you are wondering, you said in an earlier post - not sure which thread - that the early apostles never even imagined universalism)
You really like to RUB THAT IN, don't you?You also wrote:Anyway, if you wish to declare victory, now that you've made a *strong* argument - feel free.
Re: this thread:
"I rest my case and till proven wrong; I WILL HAVE "LOST" and will post it in huge bold letters!" You have my word on that. Other than this, GET OVER IT, please,
1 Tim 2:3, internal evidence, the "our" are Christians, people who are believing (the same as in 1 Tim 4:10). 1 Tim 2:4, though God wants them to, not all are saved or have saving-knowledge now or as of yet. 1 Tim 2:6, Christ has been and is a ransom for all (anyone, currently believing, or not). I've never studied "testified in due time". Till I do I don't want to guess.You wrote:I find it interesting that in virtually every occurrence of the word Saviour in the NT, it seems to refer to salvation in the sense provided by Christ, as in salvation from sin. In the very same letter to Timothy the following verses are found:
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Here also we see God referred to as our Saviour, and in the immediate context we see how His desire is for all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. We see Christ's giving of himself as a ransom (for all). What does this prove? Nothing. But it is circumstantial evidence of what might have been on Paul's mind when he spoke of God being a Saviour.
I just go by the internal evidence, Mike.Are you right about what Paul had in mind. Quite possibly. But not definitely.
Willing to Agree to Disagree,
being able to get sarcastic as humanly-speaking goes,
(can whine & moan & lash out with the best of them),
with the ability to ignore the same as I've been doing though tired of it,
learning something new every day,
not knowing everything,
but knows some,
Thanks,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Guys of the CU Club,
I really don't believe that if Jesus himself were physically present, or even Paul for that matter, would really make a 'hill of beans' of a difference in your theological perspectives. Rick in my opinion has gone the extra mile in exegeting the relevant passages of scripture under discussion. Imo, to the degree that all of you who oppose him, you either really don't give a rip about truth or you are just plain stupid! Sorry, I am getting a little emotional. Not one of you have answered him with any measure of exgetical ability, honesty or respect. You have presumed he is wrong without ever trying to understand the effort he puts into this debate. I am convinced it is not because he wants to "win" the argument, but that the argument against Cu is that strong that a 'blind idiot' could see it from any translation of the bible. God is going to seperate from Himself all who oppose Him by destroying them ultimately and finally in the LOF! Period! the end of it, FINIS! What part of the SECOND DEATH don't you people get? Where is it written that the SECOND DEATH means a SECOND CHANCE beyond the grave?????????? I am an uneducated 'idiot' and I get it.. I don't like it. But I get it!
I really don't believe that if Jesus himself were physically present, or even Paul for that matter, would really make a 'hill of beans' of a difference in your theological perspectives. Rick in my opinion has gone the extra mile in exegeting the relevant passages of scripture under discussion. Imo, to the degree that all of you who oppose him, you either really don't give a rip about truth or you are just plain stupid! Sorry, I am getting a little emotional. Not one of you have answered him with any measure of exgetical ability, honesty or respect. You have presumed he is wrong without ever trying to understand the effort he puts into this debate. I am convinced it is not because he wants to "win" the argument, but that the argument against Cu is that strong that a 'blind idiot' could see it from any translation of the bible. God is going to seperate from Himself all who oppose Him by destroying them ultimately and finally in the LOF! Period! the end of it, FINIS! What part of the SECOND DEATH don't you people get? Where is it written that the SECOND DEATH means a SECOND CHANCE beyond the grave?????????? I am an uneducated 'idiot' and I get it.. I don't like it. But I get it!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Danny,
I replied to you specifically on the arguments you presented. Yes, I suppose I could be said to have used "advanced logic" in that I took the time to research each minute detail of not only your arguments, but of the internal evidence of the texts under consideration. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but when I put my head to the grindstone, I---OWCH!
(Hohoho! Merry Christmas)!
---You don't see anything STRONG from me
---You double-checked and "nope"
---You see nothing compelling or STRONG
---Therefore, my replies are false.
DANNY!
If you don't "quote" my specific replies to you on the actual points you raised; do you want to do that or not? If you don't, I feel there's enough here for FBFF readers to objectively weigh in on what's been posted.
What's not so strong or compelling?
Quote me, then say why not!
(this is how people debate)
Or am I studying and posting data only to be judged as a moron who doesn't know how to post on the web? "Is it on another thread?"
Danny, good job on the sarcasm! I love it!
BUT IT ISN'T HOW TO WIN OR LOSE A DEBATE.
Oooops, sorry, I meant "MAKE A POINT"....
(If you'll pardon my political and theological incorrectness)....
You raised the sub-topic of:
"Scrolls/all people" -- versus -- "parchments/those who are believing"
I replied. If you didn't understand my replies, you'd need to ask what I meant by quoting me, then asking.
Anyway....
Thanks & Have a Good Day,
Rick
You wrote:The logic you are using here must be very advanced, because you are making no sense to me whatsoever.
I replied to you specifically on the arguments you presented. Yes, I suppose I could be said to have used "advanced logic" in that I took the time to research each minute detail of not only your arguments, but of the internal evidence of the texts under consideration. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but when I put my head to the grindstone, I---OWCH!
(Hohoho! Merry Christmas)!I replied in detail to your sub-topic of "scrolls and parchments" re: malista. You now reply that:You also wrote:I’m sorry, but I didn’t see anything particularly STRONG from you in this thread regarding the use of malista. I just went back through the entire thread to double check and, nope, I don’t see anything particularly compelling or STRONG. Is it maybe in one of the other CU threads?
---You don't see anything STRONG from me
---You double-checked and "nope"
---You see nothing compelling or STRONG
---Therefore, my replies are false.
DANNY!
If you don't "quote" my specific replies to you on the actual points you raised; do you want to do that or not? If you don't, I feel there's enough here for FBFF readers to objectively weigh in on what's been posted.
What's not so strong or compelling?
Quote me, then say why not!
(this is how people debate)
Or am I studying and posting data only to be judged as a moron who doesn't know how to post on the web? "Is it on another thread?"
Danny, good job on the sarcasm! I love it!
BUT IT ISN'T HOW TO WIN OR LOSE A DEBATE.
Oooops, sorry, I meant "MAKE A POINT"....
(If you'll pardon my political and theological incorrectness)....
You raised the sub-topic of:
"Scrolls/all people" -- versus -- "parchments/those who are believing"
I replied. If you didn't understand my replies, you'd need to ask what I meant by quoting me, then asking.
Anyway....
Thanks & Have a Good Day,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Bob,
(Actual thread topics, aside):
When you wrote "CU Club"...it motivates me all the more to find a job and/or hope more to get called back to work (I'm laid-off); you know, "Get A Life!"
In Steve Gregg's lectures, he mentioned something that he does that I do too: Learn all the viewpoints. Till these recent debates I was only somewhat acquainted with universalism. I knew the 'texts' they have or use and a bit about how they interpreted them. Not till I started looking into them myself---in detail---have I formed a real opinion on them that I can state and back up.
I also learn from debating, sometimes defending a position I may not actually support or support fully. And I've been proven wrong doing this many a time, like with my 13,000 posts over @ Beliefnet! Thus far, on any FBFF thread, I've found no 'reasonable reasons' to become a universalist. If it's true, I WANT to become one! But I just don't have the evidence.....
When I looked up the passage Danny brought up {2 Tim 4:13} and found articles on it from reputable sources, I 'went looking' objectively. If I would have found evidence that Danny was right, I would have had to admit it and concede the point. (Or another method could have been to not-reply, had I chosen to not admit I was wrong, lol). As it went, the very points that Danny brought up turned out to be against the position he was submitting. That is, from what I saw and reasoned...as I posted......
Steve Gregg, in his Calvinism Lectures, talks about how some texts really can't be used to support or refute Calvinism in an absolute sense; that both Calvinists and Arminians "quote" the same texts giving them their preferred meaning; or that the texts really can have more than one meaning. He goes on to say that, such being the case; other texts should be used that can be clearly demonstrated as being for or against Calvinism. And, of course, even presenting them may, or may not, change people's minds....
1 Tim 4:10, I admit, can be seen to support universalism..."on a first reading" or taken in a literal, wooden, or "plain" sense, as Dave mentioned earlier. It can be taken to not support universalism as well, as Bob, Homer, and I have posted.
I want the universalists to know that I feel I really do understand how they see this verse. I think I understand their theology also. I could probably do what Steve Gregg does in one of his lectures on Dispensationalism, which Steve doesn't believe in, and "present a case for it". I think I could (theoretically) defend universalism as if I believed in it myself. It's not that I don't understand it; I just don't agree with it...from all I've gathered so far, anyway....
So. Are we going to Agree to Disagree on this verse? or go on to more texts? I'll have a "topical" universalist thread before long...as far as that goes.
Or we could have:
"Bob's & Danny's Universally Not-So-Malistally-Consolidated Thread"
gtg,
Rick
(Actual thread topics, aside):
When you wrote "CU Club"...it motivates me all the more to find a job and/or hope more to get called back to work (I'm laid-off); you know, "Get A Life!"
In Steve Gregg's lectures, he mentioned something that he does that I do too: Learn all the viewpoints. Till these recent debates I was only somewhat acquainted with universalism. I knew the 'texts' they have or use and a bit about how they interpreted them. Not till I started looking into them myself---in detail---have I formed a real opinion on them that I can state and back up.
I also learn from debating, sometimes defending a position I may not actually support or support fully. And I've been proven wrong doing this many a time, like with my 13,000 posts over @ Beliefnet! Thus far, on any FBFF thread, I've found no 'reasonable reasons' to become a universalist. If it's true, I WANT to become one! But I just don't have the evidence.....
When I looked up the passage Danny brought up {2 Tim 4:13} and found articles on it from reputable sources, I 'went looking' objectively. If I would have found evidence that Danny was right, I would have had to admit it and concede the point. (Or another method could have been to not-reply, had I chosen to not admit I was wrong, lol). As it went, the very points that Danny brought up turned out to be against the position he was submitting. That is, from what I saw and reasoned...as I posted......
Steve Gregg, in his Calvinism Lectures, talks about how some texts really can't be used to support or refute Calvinism in an absolute sense; that both Calvinists and Arminians "quote" the same texts giving them their preferred meaning; or that the texts really can have more than one meaning. He goes on to say that, such being the case; other texts should be used that can be clearly demonstrated as being for or against Calvinism. And, of course, even presenting them may, or may not, change people's minds....
1 Tim 4:10, I admit, can be seen to support universalism..."on a first reading" or taken in a literal, wooden, or "plain" sense, as Dave mentioned earlier. It can be taken to not support universalism as well, as Bob, Homer, and I have posted.
I want the universalists to know that I feel I really do understand how they see this verse. I think I understand their theology also. I could probably do what Steve Gregg does in one of his lectures on Dispensationalism, which Steve doesn't believe in, and "present a case for it". I think I could (theoretically) defend universalism as if I believed in it myself. It's not that I don't understand it; I just don't agree with it...from all I've gathered so far, anyway....
So. Are we going to Agree to Disagree on this verse? or go on to more texts? I'll have a "topical" universalist thread before long...as far as that goes.
Or we could have:
"Bob's & Danny's Universally Not-So-Malistally-Consolidated Thread"
gtg,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
-
_Father_of_five
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:37 pm
- Location: Texas USA
Mike,mdh wrote:I find it interesting that in virtually every occurrence of the word Saviour in the NT, it seems to refer to salvation in the sense provided by Christ, as in salvation from sin. In the very same letter to Timothy the following verses are found:
You bring up a great point. Maybe we need to determine the meaning of "salvation" in order to solve this question. Here are several possibilities.
1. Saved from the judgment/wrath of God.
2. Delivered from sin in our present lives.
3. Live with God forever in heaven (after "the end").
Each of these carries different ramafications. The CU group would say that unbelievers are not "saved" in case 1 or case 2, but are saved (reconciled) in case 3. This is where the opponents of CU miss the whole point IMO. All the verses that say that unbelievers are not saved refer to case 1 or case 2 - unbelievers do not escape the wrath of God - unbelievers are not delivered from sin in their present lives. In these respects, unbelievers are NOT saved.
Paul said,
2 Cor 5:11a
Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;...
Paul (and any caring person) doesn't want anyone to suffer God's wrath or live with the consequences of their sins, and so he "persuades men" to repent and turn to God. This is true even if CU is correct.
The argument that CU encourages people to continue in sin is ridiculous. CU affirms the wrath of God on the disobedient; But CU also affirms that the punishment is not endless, and that all are ultimately reconciled through the blood of Christ.
So, regarding 1 Tim 4:10, Jesus is the Saviour of all men only for case 3, but only for believers in all three cases.
Todd
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Bob,
Rick,
Hope Beyond Hell (somewhat simplistic, but a good primer):
http://www.hopebeyondhell.net
Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, edited by Parry & Partridge
The Evangelical Universalist, Gregory MacDonald
The Inescapable Love of God, Thomas Talbott
http://www.tentmaker.org/ - Lots of articles, links, etc. Some good, some not so good.
Well, I do give a rip, so I guess that makes me just plain stupid!"...you either really don't give a rip about truth or you are just plain stupid!"
Rick,
Please believe me when I tell you I'm not saying this sarcastically or as a put-down, but with all honesty: Judging by many of the ways you've characterized what Christian Universalists believe, I don't think you really understand CU. If you really do want to understand CU, I would recommend the following:In Steve Gregg's lectures, he mentioned something that he does that I do too: Learn all the viewpoints. Till these recent debates I was only somewhat acquainted with universalism.
Hope Beyond Hell (somewhat simplistic, but a good primer):
http://www.hopebeyondhell.net
Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, edited by Parry & Partridge
The Evangelical Universalist, Gregory MacDonald
The Inescapable Love of God, Thomas Talbott
http://www.tentmaker.org/ - Lots of articles, links, etc. Some good, some not so good.
I'll agree to disagree on this one in order to focus my attention on the other Universalist threads that are active.So. Are we going to Agree to Disagree on this verse? or go on to more texts? I'll have a "topical" universalist thread before long...as far as that goes.
I like it!Or we could have:
"Bob's & Danny's Universally Not-So-Malistally-Consolidated Thread"
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: