1 Timothy 4:10

Post by **_mdh** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:14 am

You really like to RUB THAT IN, don't you?
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,

Rick,

I am sorry. I did not mean to make fun of you. I just find such passion and flair in your posts. When I am not put out by what I feel to be mis-representations by you of the view you oppose, I find your posts an enjoyable read

Did you notice my other comment:

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.

Regarding my pointing out the verses from 1 Tim. 2, I meant that to counter the argument that God is the Saviour in the sense of how it is often used in the OT, where He delivers people from their enemies or from physical disaster, etc. I think this gives strong evidence that Paul's use of the term has to do with Christ's sacrifice and the resulting possibility of salvation for all people.

So I suppose you can still say it is *possible* that Paul was speaking of God as a potential Saviour of all, and the effective Saviour of believers. However, I do not think you have proven that He did not mean the eventual Saviour of all, and in a particular, special sense, Saviour of believers already. I think that the verses from 1 Tim. 2 indicate that it is God's [strong desire, will] that everyone come to faith, come to know the truth, come to salvation. The word used is [thelo], related to a word Paul uses in Eph. 1 [thelema] where it states that God works all things after the counsel of His *will*. Where it also says that in the fullness of time God will gather *all* in Christ. (Something that is said to be to His pleasure, something that He has purposed [made up His mind] to do).

Blessings,
Mike

Post by **_Homer** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:36 pm

OK I will try again with another illustration that should be easy to understand.

God is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe in Him.

Bill is a good Christian, he has love for all people. Bill especially loves his wife Mary.

Universalist hears about Bill and assumes he has affairs with all women. Men too. After all, he loves everyone.

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:10 pm

Hi Homer,

It's a poor analogy because "love" means many different things. I love my wife and I love thai food and I love my dog and I love foggy weather.

A closer analogy to 1 Tim 4:10 would be this: Bill is married to all women, especially to his wife!

Post by **_Rick_C** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:58 pm

Mike,

You wrote:I am sorry. I did not mean to make fun of you. Did you notice my other comment: I do find your posts amusing sometimes. But I can tell you are a *very* bright guy.

Thanks. Okay, we're good,

I might be back later tonite to comment on the rest of your post. (I read 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and 1 & 2 Peter last nite which have the phrases "God our Savior" and "God our Savior and Jesus Christ our Savior" and "our great God and Savior", etc., that has stuff related).....

Todd, et al,

I'm working on a new thread which, oddly enuf, you [Todd] more or less introduced in your above post! (you have it down to a T almost)....
I mean, you really have the idea! Come to think of it, I might have gotten the idea from you to begin with...though it's all through the Bible.

Supper time here,
Rick

Post by **_Rick_C** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:14 pm

Bill is a person (one among all of them).
Bill doesn't believe in God (who is the Savior of all people).
Jill is another person (of all people).
Jill believes in God and Jesus (God, Savior of all, Jesus, Savior of just-Christians?)
Therefore, Bill and Jill are Christians.

I think I'm getting it, Danny!
Right, Homer???

Chow time,
Rick

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:27 pm

You're gradually gettin' there, Rick.

Bill doesn't believe in God. But he will! He cannot forever resist "the inescapable love of God. So right now, he is only "potentially" a Christian. But since he is going to actually be one, there is a sense in which he is in the same boat as Jill right now.

Consider Hebrews 2:7,8

You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

If God decides to put everything under his feet, it's as good as done.
so the quote is true, "You... put everything under his feet." But it hasn't yet happened! So "at present we do not see everything subject to him."

Likewise, God is going to save Bill and all the other ungenerates, when they repent and submit (This is inevitable. They can't hold out forever). And God wants to save them. So we might as well say that God is their Saviour now.

So God is the Saviour of all people! But especially those who believe. Especially, because they have already repented and submitted.

Hmmm... I wonder if it would be appropriate to call him "Brother Bill" even now in anticipation of his future discipleship.

Post by **_Rick_C** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:46 pm

Paidion,

You wrote:Likewise, God is going to save Bill and all the other ungenerates, when they repent and submit (This is inevitable. They can't hold out forever). And God wants to save them. So we might as well say that God is their Saviour now. So God is the Saviour of all people! But especially those who believe. Especially, because they have already repented and submitted.

First, what's an 'ungenerate'?
("unborn" is my guess)....

So, you're saying a person like 'Bill', according to universalism, are going to get "saved" by NOT getting saved? (Don't you think that's a little on the contradictory end of things)?
I do,
Rick

Post by **_Homer** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:38 am

Paidion,

You wrote:

Likewise, God is going to save Bill and all the other ungenerates, when they repent and submit (This is inevitable. They can't hold out forever). And God wants to save them. So we might as well say that God is their Saviour now.

But how do you know they have "forever"? You insist aionios means "time ending", and as far as we know, that's all they (or we) have. What word or words cause you to think the clock will not run out on them?

Post by **_Homer** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:49 am

Danny,

It's a poor analogy because "love" means many different things. I love my wife and I love thai food and I love my dog and I love foggy weather.

And soter has more than one sense. You folks only weaken your argument by continually using 1 Tim. 4:10 as support for your cause. The best you have done is to show it might mean what you think it does, and this verse is about as good as it gets for universalism.

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:53 pm

Homer wrote:But how do you know they have "forever"? You insist aionios means "time ending", and as far as we know, that's all they (or we) have. What word or words cause you to think the clock will not run out on them?

"Not having 'forever'" or "the clock running out on them" are meaningless concepts regardless of the meaning of "ainios". If not, then would that mean that all events cease for them? That nothing ever happens?

Besides, I have never stated that "aiōnios" means "time ending". Rather I have denied that it ever means "eternal". Actually, no meaning concerning length of time is embedded in the meaning of "aiōnios".
Since it is the adjectival form of "aiōn" (age), it's literal meaning is "agey".
It has the same meaning as "aeonion" in English. Dictionaries define that English word as "pertaining to an age". I believe that the biblical use of the word is often "going from age to age". That which goes from age to age could continue going from age to age forever, or it could come to an end after many ages. The word itself doesn't mean one or the other. It can simply refer to going from age to age.

As you, yourself, have pointed out, the word is sometimes used figuratively. It, and it's OT equivalent when used figuratively often means "permanent", and as we know, that which is permanent, does not necessarily last forever (eg. one's driver's licence).

There is a pretty clear example in the OT, where the words translated as
"forever" as applied to a future condition of Jerusalem, until the Spirit comes from on high and changes things.

For the palace will be forsaken, the populous city deserted; the hill and the watchtower will become dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest. Then justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field. Isaiah 32:14-16[/i]

Now how can we have conditions which are to apply "forever" until the Spirit comes, and those conditions change?

In the passage, the Septuagint uses the Greek phrase "eōs tou aiōnos" (until the age). The New Testament seems to use two phrases frequently:
"eis ton aiōna"(into the age) or "eis tous aiōnas" (into the ages).

And, of course, there's the phrase in the New Testament "aiōnion kolasis" (correction going from age to age). Correction cannot be "eternal". How would one know when the correction was complete.