1 Timothy 2:1-6

PuritanCovenanter · #1 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 08:52 AM

So after years of contemplating this issue I am going to throw this into the air and see what you guys can come up with here. What is this desire that God wills? When you look at this passage and the passage in Ezekiel I am posting also what do you conclude?

Quote:

(1Ti 2:1) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

(1Ti 2:2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

(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.

Quote:

(Eze 18:23) Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

BobVigneault · #2 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 09:02 AM

In the Timothy passage, the context is about praying for kings. Why? Because it is God's will that all TYPES of men be saved. Not just the average joe, not just the workers and down trodden but yes, even kings. We are to pray for their salvation because God has not left them out of his will just because they are kings and may even be oppressive. That's my take on the Timothy passage.

Ezekiel16 · #3 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 09:05 AM

Hey Randy,

Have you looked up Owen (Death of Death) on this?

I don't have time at the moment but he should suffice.

Gryphonette · #4 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 09:11 AM

The LORD really does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, and would be pleased if everyone would turn to Him in faith.

But that desire is overridden by the desire to have His attributes of justice and wrath given their full scope, and for that to happen, not everyone can be saved.

I think of it as being similar to an author who creates a character, writes a story in which the character dies, and cries with grief when writing it. To the author the character is real, and the grief felt because of the character's demise is real; the fact the author is the sole creator of both the character and the events surrounding him or her doesn't mitigate the emotional response.

If there had been some way for the LORD to express His justice and wrath without creating sentient beings who hate Him and will be ultimately damned, He'd have done it.

But even for a totally sovereign Creator, there are some things He cannot have, and that's one of 'em.

Iconoclast · #5 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 10:06 AM

Randy,
I agree with Bob's post on 1 Tim2 all types of men.
On Ezekiel 18 I always think of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem.Humanly speaking if all men living would, or could repent, everyone would be happy.
However the devasting effects of sin and the righteous judgement of God against all sin demands the judgement to come.
One reason these verses are in scripture is to instruct us on who to pray for, and what attitude we must strive to maintain, desiring to see men turn from sin.

A5pointer · #6 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

In the Timothy passage, the context is about praying for kings. Why? Because it is God's will that all TYPES of men be saved. Not just the average joe, not just the workers and down trodden but yes, even kings. We are to pray for their salvation because God has not left them out of his will just because they are kings and may even be oppressive. That's my take on the Timothy passage.

This is of course the majority long held harmonization but I do not have a problem with the one suggested by the thread.

mshingler · #7 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 10:45 AM

Maybe I'm way off base here, but I think of the distinction, here, between the prescriptive and the decretive will of God. God commands all men to repent, and is willing for all to be saved in the sense that He does not hinder or prevent anyone from receiving the gospel. However, in His secret, eternal purposes, He has decreed that not all will be saved and that He will give the gift of faith to His elect only. At the same time, the fact that God has decreed that not all will be saved, I don't think that changes the reality that He is grieved at sin and grieved at the eternal destruction and ruin of His creatures.

Barnpreacher · #8 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 10:48 AM

I'm sure Bruce or Matthew could handle the Ezekiel passage with a lot more clarity than I can, so I'll just stick to the Timothy passage.

It seems to be all about context. In verse 1 Paul could not be referring to all men without exception, because that's just not possible that all men without exception be named in prayer. I think verse 2 makes that point even more clearly because Paul doesn't name specific kings and leaders in authority. He simply says we should pray for those in authority.

So, I think from that context trying to read all men without exception into verse four would be a mistake.

A5pointer · #9 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

I'm sure Bruce or Matthew could handle the Ezekiel passage with a lot more clarity than I can, so I'll just stick to the Timothy passage.

It seems to be all about context. In verse 1 Paul could not be referring to all men without exception, because that's just not possible that all men without exception be named in prayer. I think verse 2 makes that point even more clearly because Paul doesn't name specific kings and leaders in authority. He simply says we should pray for those in authority.

So, I think from that context trying to read all men without exception into verse four would be a mistake.

Ryan, you've got me confused with someone else

I see your point in the text. Some would say something like this. Kings are enemies. God desires kings even enemies saved therefore all kinds of men. I have no strong opinion on the text excepting the way our Arminians freinds throw it at us

.

Barnpreacher · #10 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

I'm sure Bruce or Matthew could handle the Ezekiel passage with a lot more clarity than I can, so I'll just stick to the Timothy passage.

It seems to be all about context. In verse 1 Paul could not be referring to all men without exception, because that's just not possible that all men without exception be named in prayer. I think verse 2 makes that point even more clearly because Paul doesn't name specific kings and leaders in authority. He simply says we should pray for those in authority.

So, I think from that context trying to read all men without exception into verse four would be a mistake.

Ryan, you've got me confused with someone else

I see your point in the text. Some would say something like this. Kings are enemies. God desires kings even enemies saved therefore all kinds of men. I have no strong opinion on the text excepting the way our Arminians freinds throw it at us

.

- Sorry, it was Bruce Buchanan I was talking about. Not that you couldn't handle the passage just fine, but it seems like when there's a difficult passage I usually wait for Rev. Buchanan or Rev. Winzer to give an answer. Not that there aren't plenty of capable other folks to answer. Good grief, see what happens when you start naming names. I have to remind myself all the time what a bad idea it is!!!

Poimen · #11 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 11:19 AM

I think Anne answered the Ezekiel 18:23 passage just fine though I might add:

The operative word is pleasure: does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked? No. Does He decree that they die? Yes.

For we must remember the purpose of this passage: the people complain that they are judged on the basis of what their father's did (vs. 2). God declares that those who do right will live on the basis of what they have done, and those who have done wrong will die on the basis of what they have done. In other words, the passage in toto is about God's justice, not about His eternal decree to elect and reprobate.

Even in Romans 9, possibly the heaviest passage on reprobation in the whole Bible, we are told that God endures the wickedness of the 'vessels of wrath' with much long suffering. Though the death of the sinner is warranted by justice and thus God decrees it in accordance with His nature, we are not to think that He delights in it for death itself is contrary to the revealed will of God (that we might live - Ezekiel 18:32).

Gomarus · #12 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 11:56 AM

John Gill on Ezek. 18:23 (italics mine)

Verse 23. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God,.... Perish by sword, famine, or pestilence, or go into captivity; this, though the Lord's will and work, yet is his strange work; mercy is his delight. This is to be understood not absolutely; for the Lord does take pleasure in these things, as they fulfil his word, secure the honour of his truth and holiness, and glorify his justice, and especially when they are the means of reclaiming men from the evil of their ways; but comparatively, as follows:

[and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? that is, it is more pleasing to God that a man should repent of his sins, and forsake his vicious course of life, and enjoy good things, than to go on in his sins, and bring ruin on himself, here and hereafter.

PuritanCovenanter · #13 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshingler

Maybe I'm way off base here, but I think of the distinction, here, between the prescriptive and the decretive will of God.

It is preceptive will. Not presciptive. God commands we obey his precepts but has decreed that men crucify Christ.

The problem I have with the Bawbs interpretation is that the common man is seemingly mentioned in the previous verse. The reason we are to pray for Kings and Authorities is so that we may live in peace, to be more specific. I kind semi agree that the text may lead to an interpretation of "all types of men" as Gill puts it. But I have also leaned more towards Reverend Kok's understanding.

It seems Gill critiques the idea of God having two contrary wills (or desires) that seem to pull at each other as in the kind of thinking that Rev. Kok and Mrs. Ivy are discussing. I have been more prone to their understanding but have also questioned the fact.... Does God have desire as a man? Can he desire one thing and yet have to choose the other. This doesn't seem to line up with the attributes of God does it?

BobVigneault · #14 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 12:24 PM

I'm comfortable with my response to the Timothy passage. I am not as comfortable with the Ezekiel passage. The biggest problem is as you say Randy with trying to explain two opposite desires to the average man. Ugh!

I explain free will as the ability to do that which we desire the most. God always does that which he desires the most as well.

A5pointer · #15 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

I'm comfortable with my response to the Timothy passage. I am not as comfortable with the Ezekiel passage. The biggest problem is as you say Randy with trying to explain two opposite desires to the average man. Ugh!

I explain free will as the ability to do that which we desire the most. God always does that which he desires the most as well.

I hear ya Bob, but remember God is not neccessarily like his creation and vice versa.

Wannabee · #16 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 01:01 PM

I would agree with Bawb on the Timothy passage. I've understood it to be "all types of men." But that doesn't explain 1 John 2:2.

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. I understand the "cosmos" argument, and agree with it in most cases. But this verse, in context, can't be explained as readily.

mshingler · #17 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 01:06 PM

[quote=PuritanCovenanter;377837]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshingler

Maybe I'm way off base here, but I think of the distinction, here, between the prescriptive and the decretive will of God.

It is preceptive will. Not presciptive.

I left out an "r". I meant to say "prescriptive", as in what God commands/prescribes of men, though it means basically the same thing as "preceptive."

Thomas2007 · #18 (**permalink**) 03-28-2008, 02:28 PM

Tyranny is God's wrath against sin - but He desires that we live not under His wrath, but under His law, so we may have freedom and fulfill our duty unto both man and God in peace, enjoying the peace that Christ has purchased for us.

You have to remember that the concept of praying for Kings and Rulers in authority was extremely offensive at this time. You may pray unto Caesar, but praying for Caesar was a direct denial of both his claim of deity and sovereignty. It was a revolutionary act and the foundation of Rome's criminal charges against Christians as atheists.

A lawful civil magistrate can do more to advance the Gospel by upholding justice than most people realize - it provides continuity between law and gospel where the heathen can see and understand the gospel. Whereas the flip side, good becomes evil, evil becomes good and our preaching against sin has no real world example because it is an abstraction - sin goes unpunished and indeed generally those who embrace in those situations prosper.

So, I interpret these passages within the historical context they are written in, that under the Great Commission the civil magistrate is an aid unto the Church demonstrating God's justice in a visible and tangible form and the Gospel is no longer an other-worldly abstraction to people.

brandonadams · #19 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 01:32 AM

I recently came across a few articles that were very helpful for me:

"The Free Offer of the Gospel" by John Murray
Westminster Seminary California clark

"Murray on the Free Offer: A Review" by Matthew Winzer (a member here I believe)
Murray on the Free Offer: A Review by Matthew Winzer

"Is Denial of the "Well-Meant Offer" Hyper-Calvinism?"
Is Denial of the "Well-Meant Offer" Hyper-Calvinism?

(more articles from PRCA on the topic Pamphlets and Articles)

A History of Hypo-Calvinism Part 1:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF...-Calvinism.pdf
Part 2:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF...sCalvinism.pdf

armourbearer · #20 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 01:59 AM

In the Timothy passage, the "all" whom God wills to be saved, ver. 4, are the "all" for whom Christ gave His life a ransom, ver. 6. There is no difficulty in calling this a distributive or even an indefinite universal, but numerous problems arise from calling this an all-inclusive universal.

In the Ezekiel passage, the context makes it clear that God's pleasure is that the wicked who turn from their wickedness should live, and should not be punished either for their former transgressions or for the sins of their fathers. Conversely, it is also God's pleasure that the righteous who fall from their righteousness should be punished, and should not be exempted on the basis of their past life. This is a basic prophetic paradigm wherein the prophet is commissioned to declare the sanctions of the covenant. A similar example is found in Jer. 18:6-10.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #21 (**permalink**) 04-18-2008, 07:02 AM

I actually have some recent blog posts on this passage on Backwoods Presbyterian