justin_gatlin — 2017-10-19T19:41:52-04:00 — #1
Please do not bounce around and say this passage cannot mean what it seems to mean because of your preexisting doctrines (there is no reason to have the same discussion that 9/10 of these threads devolve to), but interpret this passage in its context. If you feel like there is a rock solid passage for limited atonement, I am happy to debate that passage, and that passage only, on your new thread. It is possible to refer to other passages for verbal parallels or pursuing the definition of a word, but let's be rigorous and deal with one text at a time. I will organize this like a formal debate to help make my point.
Resolved: God has given Jesus to purchase a ransom for every human being, rooted in His non-efficacious desire for all to be saved.
1 Timothy 2:1-7 ESV, emphasis added
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth."
Contention 1: The desire described is not efficacious desire
Contention 1a.) θέλω does not necessarily mean efficacious desire.
The verb θέλω is used with God as the subject 14 times in the New Testament. It is often about God's will in the sense of what certainly will happen (James 4:15, Romans 9:18). But there are at least two passages where it cannot (Hebrews 10:5 is why I say "at least."). Matthew 9:13 (Matthew 12:7) decrees that God desired mercy, but in the context did not find it. Hosea 6:6-7 is the passage quoted, where it is clear that God's desire is not necessarily efficacious: "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me."
Contention 1b.) θέλω does not mean efficacious desire here.
1 Timothy 1:19-20 describes two people who must repent or perish. So Paul is not teaching universal salvation, but the universal offer of salvation.
Contention 2: πάντας ἀνθρώπους and πάντων refer not to people as classes, but to individuals.
Contention 2a:"To individuals" best first the context.
It is peculiar to read verse 1 as "I urge that [prayers] be made for all kinds of people." We should not pray "Lord, bless all the bakers and lawyers and..." Rather, we have no right to withhold prayers from any individual, though they be a Nero or a Pilate.
When we look at it like this, it is clear. Pray for all of these people (not interpreted in such a literalistic way that we must pray for each person in the world, one after the other), that we may have a peaceful life. It is good for us to, through prayer, have a peaceful life so we may be a witness to all people, because God desires for all people to be saved.
Contention 2b: "To individuals" is the usage of the term in the rest of the New Testament.
This is consistent with the use of the phrase elsewhere in the New Testament (Luke 6:26, Acts 17:30, Romans 2:9, Romans 5:18, 1 Corinthians 5:19, Galatians 5:3, Colossians 1:28, 1 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Timothy 4:10, James 1:19). Titus 3:2 is particularly relevant because it is so parallel with the Epistles to Timothy. I challenge anyone to give me an example where the meaning is unambiguously "all kinds of people" rather than "every individual" or "excepting no one."
Contention 2c: "To individuals" best fits with verse 5.
Right in the middle of this passage is Jesus' identity as the God-Man and the mediator between God and Man. The usage of man here is obviously of mankind as a whole. There is God in Heaven, there is a mass body of humanity on the Earth, which God desires to be saved. But they will only be saved through the Mediator Jesus. It is clear that the God/Man contrast is central here, while any sense of classes of people is absent (the entire discourse refers to prayer - the topic picked back up directly in verse 8).
Contention 3: The γάρ in verse 5 reaffirms the dualism of God/Man as central to the discussion.
The reasons are two: first, pray to God because there is one God. There are not many gods, but one God who is sovereign over every person. So we pray to that God for all men. Second, there is one mediator between God and mankind (the man Christ Jesus). There is one available mediator to the One God - that mediator who gave His life as a ransom for all people. He is the bridge, both human and divine. Jesus is not all classes of humanity.
Conclusion: A close reading of 1 Timothy 2:1-7(8) only deepens the plain reading. Jesus died for every man, so that all who go through Him is welcome in the presence of the Father.
dave_l — 2017-10-20T05:28:15-04:00 — #2
Universal Atonement doesn't save anyone = salvation by works. Particular redemption saves all whom God intended = salvation by grace.
justin_gatlin — 2017-10-20T05:40:14-04:00 — #3
Your philosophical presuppositions are noted. Thank you for your input. Can you carefully refute my exegesis of the passage at hand?
dave_l — 2017-10-20T05:41:37-04:00 — #4
It is self refuting based on the logic I presented.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-10-20T09:17:01-04:00 — #5
Where in the original post on this topic did the author speak of "universal atonement" ??
Are you confusing "universal atonement" with "sin-sacrifice made so all who will may be saved"?? The original post does not state that all men will be saved, does it?
What you think is "logic" appears to be assumption based on a false premise ...
dave_l — 2017-10-20T09:52:05-04:00 — #6
Justin said; "God has given Jesus to purchase a ransom for every human being, rooted in His non-efficacious desire for all to be saved."
This means the atonement did not save anyone = no atonement at all = Pelagianism = salvation by works.
If a doctrine leads to false conclusions, it is not true. Justin presents an atonement that does not save anyone. This equals having no atonement at all.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-20T11:11:48-04:00 — #7
I believe this line of thought (the concept of the universal offer) may be in line with why we find that the ἀπόληται and ἔχῃ of John 3:16 are in the subjunctive rather than in the indicative.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-10-20T11:14:36-04:00 — #8
What you claim this means is NOT what Justin said ... When are you finally applying yourself to first reading accurately what others write before trumpeting out your prefabricated ideas and responses??
dave_l — 2017-10-20T11:22:50-04:00 — #9
Justin believes in Universal Atonement. His statement reflects this.
justin_gatlin — 2017-10-20T12:10:33-04:00 — #10
Can you please answer my exegesis? Jesus gave His life as a ransom for all men, but not all are saved. These things are both clear from the text, as I have shown.
dave_l — 2017-10-20T14:18:26-04:00 — #11
Consider where your interpretation leads. If the atonement does not save all for whom it was intended, there is no atonement = Pelagianism = salvation by works. On the other hand, Limited Atonement saves those whom God intended = salvation by grace.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-10-20T14:29:38-04:00 — #12
is this not more like where your (Dave_L's) interpretation leads?
You are mixing up "atonement" and "ransom".
I once provided same gifts for a number of children ...my gift was sufficient for all those children. Unfortunately, some children did not accept and take the gift (for whatever reason). This, however, did not change anything about my gift and my will that all children have the gift ... nor did it diminish the gift and turn it into a gift for only some rather than all children.
You make God to not have intended the gift for all based on the fact that some rejected the gift. In other words, you actually make the decision by some to reject God's gift into a decision by God Himself to not have intended it for all, but only for those who would accept it.
I consider such an idea to be unbiblical and in error.
justin_gatlin — 2017-10-20T14:41:46-04:00 — #13
It is odd that God never saw fit to include anything to that effect in the Bible.
What the Bible does say is that God desires all men to be saved, so He gave Jesus as a ransom for all.
dave_l — 2017-10-20T14:43:31-04:00 — #14
If an atonement does not save anyone. It is equal to no atonement at all.
To whom did Jesus pay the ransom to?
The atonement pays for all of the sins of those God wanted to save. If it is conditioned on "accepting" it, then the atonement is only for the self-righteous.
dave_l — 2017-10-20T15:06:00-04:00 — #15
But, this interpretation does not square with salvation by grace. It squares solidly with salvation by works. And salvation for the self-righteous only. We must see where our interpretations lead before we write them in stone.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-10-20T15:32:02-04:00 — #16
?? what is this statement supposed to address?
So then you have a God Who does NOT want all to be saved ... thereby flat out contradicting what is written in Scripture (1Ti 2:4)
Yeah ... keep repeating it. Actually, your claim here shows an apparent ignorance of what Scripture teaches concerning atonement, believing, God's will for all men, etc
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-10-20T15:35:21-04:00 — #17
you appear to have a rather strange concept of salvation by grace and salvation by works ... which is no wonder as it based on strange doctrine regarding "faith/believing", "dead in trespasses and sin", "inherited sin" ... and God knows how many other
dave_l — 2017-10-21T06:52:19-04:00 — #18
The topic of discussion "the ransom for all".
“I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” (John 17:9)
Why would Jesus not pray for all if he supposedly redeemed all?
gao_lu — 2017-10-21T07:20:06-04:00 — #19
Because he was speaking directly to a certain group in an exclusive setting. Not everything Jesus said was said to everyone in the world.
dave_l — 2017-10-21T07:24:11-04:00 — #20
Why would he pray for some and not for others? He said all that the Father gave to him would come to him. Do you think he wasted his blood on those whom the Father had not given to him?
next page →