1 Tim 2:4,6 and Arminians

[God'sElectSaint]

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. (KJV)

I wanted to post this in it's full context. I realize this does not refute Reformed Theology. Here's my understanding of this in light of the doctrine of election: "All men" I believe here refers to all kids of men like kings, governors and civilians alike in the context of verses 1,2 which command us to pray for all men. Obviously we don't pray for every single individual on the planet. Is it proper to take the "all men" in v4 in this respect as well? Just want to make sure I am on the money for my own personal studies and to respond to the inevitable Arminian usage of this passage. Which Dr. James White calls one of the big 3, I think the other two are 2 Pet 3:9 as well as Matt 23:37

 

[timfost]

When you consider these verses, remember that there are differences of opinion as to the meaning even among the reformed. None of them are proof of Arminian doctrine, however. I would suggest not being dogmatic as to one particular interpretation as some interpret them in relation to God's revealed will.

In my opinion, Gresham Machen has a good approach to this verse. Theological Meditations: J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) on Ezekiel 33:11 and 1 Timothy 2:4 (I'm not endorsing this website, just found the article there when I searched on Google).

Calvin has a similar approach for 2 Pet. 3:9.

When conversing with an Arminian, I would encourage pointing him to an absolutely sovereign God and the comfort that it is to know that He's sovereign.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

When you consider these verses, remember that there are differences of opinion as to the meaning even among the reformed. None of them are proof of Arminian doctrine, however. I would suggest not being dogmatic as to one particular interpretation as some interpret them in relation to God's revealed will.

In my opinion, Gresham Machen has a good approach to this verse. Theological Meditations: J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) on Ezekiel 33:11 and 1 Timothy 2:4 (I'm not endorsing this website, just found the article there when I searched on Google).

Calvin has a similar approach for 2 Pet. 3:9.

When conversing with an Arminian, I would encourage pointing him to an absolutely sovereign God and the comfort that it is to know that He's sovereign.

Thanks but that's kind of the reason I posted this was to get other interpretations.

 

[KeithW]

The best teaching I've ever heard on the word all is by Jeff Pollard of Mount Zion Bible Church. He doesn't start with doctrine but with the English and Greek meanings of the word all, and then walks through both Old Testament and New Testament examples to consider which of the possible meanings is used in context. Considering it this way refutes the "all means all" crowd before you even start looking at particular Scriptures.

See these two sermons:
Doctrine of Grace: 'For God So Loved the World' 23 of 38
Doctrine of Grace: 'A Ransom For All' 24 of 38

 

[God'sElectSaint]

The best teaching I've ever heard on the word all is by Jeff Pollard of Mount Zion Bible Church. He doesn't start with doctrine but with the English and Greek meanings of the word all, and then walks through both Old Testament and New Testament examples to consider which of the possible meanings is used in context. Considering it this way refutes the "all means all" crowd before you even start looking at particular Scriptures.

See these two sermons:
Doctrine of Grace: 'For God So Loved the World' 23 of 38
Doctrine of Grace: 'A Ransom For All' 24 of 38

Thanks Keith! I think know & foreknow follow that same logic. Obviously know has many meanings in the Bible. This was big for me to come to terms with reformed theology. Understanding that the foreknow in Romans 8:29 was an active verb in Greek and that it could not possibly mean he foresaw who would believe. MacArthur explained this well in one of his sermons. Approaching scripture from the reformed perspective makes it so much easier to understand. The Bible has truly come to life for me since I have come to terms with it. I don't have to tear Romans 9 out my bibles anymore!(joking here of course) But it's so clear to me now that the Bible knows nothing of this free will of man in salvation stuff. You know I think it was James White that explained that he thinks a big reason for the vast amount of Arminianism in America is because we are a Democracy and that if we had grown up under kings or dictators a Sovereign God might be easier to comprehend(of course he wasn't promoting Communism) But I think it makes a good point. I see now that I came originally to my Bible with the idea that man has free choice and free will. I really have sympathy for my Arminian brother & sisters because I do understand their thinking. But their is great comfort in the Doctrines of Grace to know God is in control of my destiny. Even our Lord rested on this knowledge quite often:
Luk 10:21 "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
That's awesome to me! Sorry I'm still a reformed newb and these things get me excited.

 

[KeithW]

Hi Edward,

I am glad you are learning the doctrines of Grace. Once I starting learning them it made my view of God higher and my view of man lower.

I was thinking more about how people have addressed the idea of man's free will from a historical perspective. When the Pelagian controversy arose, the first thing Augustine re-established was the fallen nature of man that we are born with, aka. original sin, man's inability to turn to God. When the semi-Pelagian controversy arose the first thing the Council of Orange re-established was original sin. When the Arminian controversy arose the first thing the Council of Dordt re-established was Total Depravity, aka original sin. They did not start by establishing Limited Atonement first, aka what does all mean.

Also, the word all in 1 Tim. 2:4 is Strong's G3956.

1. individually
   1. .each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
   1. some of all types

That last meaning is something to think about.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Hi Edward,

I am glad you are learning the doctrines of Grace. Once I starting learning them it made my view of God higher and my view of man lower.

I was thinking more about how people have addressed the idea of man's free will from a historical perspective. When the Pelagian controversy arose, the first thing Augustine re-established was the fallen nature of man that we are born with, aka. original sin, man's inability to turn to God. When the semi-Pelagian controversy arose the first thing the Council of Orange re-established was original sin. When the Arminian controversy arose the first thing the Council of Dordt re-established was Total Depravity, aka original sin. They did not start by establishing Limited Atonement first, aka what does all mean.

Also, the word all in 1 Tim. 2:4 is Strong's G3956.

1. individually
   1. .each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
   1. some of all types

That last meaning is something to think about.

That's SO true. Man's utter inability to seek God and absolute spiritual deadness is the major difference. It even changes our way of witnessing.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Regarding 1 Tim. 2:4, that God will have all men to be saved, an example of the breadth that reformed theology has allowed on this verse:

Francis Turretin (d. 1687) allows that this verse refers to God's Revealed will, that is, that God is willing that all men should be saved, as other orthodox men of his day interpreted it, though he argues for an effectual-decree-for-the-elect interpretation:

Francis Turretin on 1 Tim. 2:4​

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Regarding 1 Tim. 2:4, that God will have all men to be saved, an example of the breadth that reformed theology has allowed on this verse:

Francis Turretin (d. 1687) allows that this verse refers to God's Revealed will, that is, that God is willing that all men should be saved, as other orthodox men of his day interpreted it, though he argues for an effectual-decree-for-the-elect interpretation:

Francis Turretin on 1 Tim. 2:4​

Hmm. I can't really see that in this verse right now.

 

[MW]

Sorry I'm still a reformed newb and these things get me excited.

Please don't be sorry, Edward. If these things don't get others excited it is likely the case that they need to learn the doctrines of grace all over again.

I am sorry that you have only been given access to the "exceptions" to the reformed faith. Be prepared to meet with this kind of thing on a regular basis. "All kinds of men" is the general reformed interpretation of the passage. You will find this clearly demonstrated at the following page (click on the link to the paper on 1 Tim. 2:4):

Welcome - Edinburgh Free Church Continuing

There is that which calls itself a sincere free offer of salvation which is a sincere free offer of nothing more than salvability. They turn the grace of God into a mere sentiment (a salvation in word, but not in deed). This is unscriptural and unreformed. The Lord saves. That is what Jesus means. He shall save His people from their sins. They wish God would wish all men saved. But salvation is an historical reality accomplished in Christ. There is no salvation apart from His saving work.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Sorry I'm still a reformed newb and these things get me excited.

Please don't be sorry, Edward. If these things don't get others excited it is likely the case that they need to learn the doctrines of grace all over again.

I am sorry that you have only been given access to the "exceptions" to the reformed faith. Be prepared to meet with this kind of thing on a regular basis. "All kinds of men" is the general reformed interpretation of the passage. You will find this clearly demonstrated at the following page (click on the link to the paper on 1 Tim. 2:4):

Welcome - Edinburgh Free Church Continuing

There is that which calls itself a sincere free offer of salvation which is a sincere free offer of nothing more than salvability. They turn the grace of God into a mere sentiment (a salvation in word, but not in deed). This is unscriptural and unreformed. The Lord saves. That is what Jesus means. He shall save His people from their sins. They wish God would wish all men saved. But salvation is an historical reality accomplished in Christ. There is no salvation apart from His saving work.

So my interpretation of all kinds of men (kings,rulers,jews,gentiles) is the common one of the reformed church is what you are saying Matthew?

 

[MW]

So my interpretation of all kinds of men (kings,rulers,jews,gentiles) is the common one of the reformed church is what you are saying Matthew?

Yes. The reformed faith gives full acknowledgment to the biblical revelation that salvation is actual and effectual because it is God's work. As all men are not saved it follows that the word "all" must be restricted to classes of men, which is precisely what the context demands.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

So my interpretation of all kinds of men (kings,rulers,jews,gentiles) is the common one of the reformed church is what you are saying Matthew?

Yes. The reformed faith gives full acknowledgment to the biblical revelation that salvation is actual and effectual because it is God's work. As all men are not saved it follows that the word "all" must be restricted to classes of men, which is precisely what the context demands.

That's the only way i could see it. I watched James White and he said the exact same thing.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I still don't quite understand the God's Revealed Will interpretation? Can someone explain a little more ? Kinda like Matthew said I can only see it as all kinds of men but I am willing to try and understand the other interpretation.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I know this does not address 2 Tim 2:4-6 directly but I believe it addresses similar logic. I often use this example to demonstrate the understanding of the use of "All men".

In Acts 9 when Paul is converted it says he was chosen to preach the gospel before Gentiles, Kings and the Children of Israel, then in Acts 22 when Paul is recounting his experience he uses "all men", therefore the passage in Acts 9 explain what is meant by "all men" in Acts 22, which is all "classes" of men.

Acts 9:

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Acts 22:

12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.

14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

Regarding 1 Tim. 2:4, that God will have all men to be saved, an example of the breadth that reformed theology has allowed on this verse:

Francis Turretin (d. 1687) allows that this verse refers to God's Revealed will, that is, that God is willing that all men should be saved, as other orthodox men of his day interpreted it, though he argues for an effectual-decree-for-the-elect interpretation:

Francis Turretin on 1 Tim. 2:4​

A form of Amyraldianism? I know it is not the gospel. And I am not referring to Francis Turretin.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Nicholas,


No, Francis Turretin is not referring to Amyrauldians as 'other orthodox men' in that passage. Turretin's chapter is arguing against Amyrauldianism, and the 'other orthodox men' that Turretin refers to are those who held to limited atonement, etc. Feel free to read the larger chapter of Turretin's to see this.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.

That was my thinking Bill. The other interpretations posted confused me very much at first. Because I thought I was understanding it correctly as "all classes or kinds of men". I now believe that my interpretation is correct, it makes most sense. I know Tim said not to be dogmatic about this but I feel like I can be pretty firm and sure about the "all kids of men" interpretation. The other views like you said would seem to support Universalism or Arminianism.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.

Good post

Praise God!

 

[timfost]

If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.

This is a little oversimplified... Calvin does a masterful job in Insitutes 3.24.17.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.

This is a little oversimplified... Calvin does a masterful job in Insitutes 3.24.17.

Okay Tim, I looked into this a little more. So the other interpretation is kinda that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, which clears things up for me a little. That is an interesting interpretation but at this moment(which of course could change) I feel that "all types of men" just fits the direct context much better and is a simpler exegeses of the passage at hand. But I now understand(I think)what you are getting at a little better.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.

This is a little oversimplified... Calvin does a masterful job in Insitutes 3.24.17.

If one holds to a Calvinist view of salvation whereby it is entirely an act of God, and if one also holds that God desires all to be saved, then the only thing that can logically follow is universalism. Since we rightly reject universalism, then the only two possible options are 1. Salvation is not entirely an act of God, or 2. God does not desire all men to be saved.

 

[Toasty]

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. (KJV)

I wanted to post this in it's full context. I realize this does not refute Reformed Theology. Here's my understanding of this in light of the doctrine of election: "All men" I believe here refers to all kids of men like kings, governors and civilians alike in the context of verses 1,2 which command us to pray for all men. Obviously we don't pray for every single individual on the planet. Is it proper to take the "all men" in v4 in this respect as well? Just want to make sure I am on the money for my own personal studies and to respond to the inevitable Arminian usage of this passage. Which Dr. James White calls one of the big 3, I think the other two are 2 Pet 3:9 as well as Matt 23:37

The "all men" in verse 4 is referring to all kinds of people. Verses 1 and 2 speak of praying for all kinds of people including kings and for all who are in authority. Verse 6 is speaking about Christ making a ransom for all kinds of people.

 

[Toasty]

Regarding 1 Tim. 2:4, that God will have all men to be saved, an example of the breadth that reformed theology has allowed on this verse:

Francis Turretin (d. 1687) allows that this verse refers to God's Revealed will, that is, that God is willing that all men should be saved, as other orthodox men of his day interpreted it, though he argues for an effectual-decree-for-the-elect interpretation:

Francis Turretin on 1 Tim. 2:4​

Can this mean that God commands all people to believe in Jesus?

 

[JimmyH]

Election has been explained to me out of this passage in Romans 9 (NASB) ;

14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed [k]throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel [l]for honorable use and another [m]for common use? 22 [n]What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles

 

[God'sElectSaint]

If we reject universalism, then it seems to me that there can only be two possible interpretations of this passage. Paul either means all kinds of men, or God's desire for all to be saved is limited by man's refusal to accept him. Since this is a reformed board, I would assume that most of us would reject the latter, and so the former seems to be the only proper interpretation. The view that God somehow has a split personality and cannot achieve his own will seems wholly inconguent and inconsistent with the nature of God.

This is a little oversimplified... Calvin does a masterful job in Insitutes 3.24.17.

If one holds to a Calvinist view of salvation whereby it is entirely an act of God, and if one also holds that God desires all to be saved, then the only thing that can logically follow is universalism. Since we rightly reject universalism, then the only two possible options are 1. Salvation is not entirely an act of God, or 2. God does not desire all men to be saved.

That's what I find as well Bill. I think some folks might be looking too deep into this rather than taking it at face value. For instance a verse like this "Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Another example would be "Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." I think it's clear "all men" does not mean every single individual in the world. Especially looking at the Romans 5:18 we see "all men" but if look back at verse 15 we see Paul say "hath abounded unto many." So these terms seem to be quite often interchangeable. I think it would be inconsistent to take 1 Tim 2:4's "all men" as every single individual, and then not take the other two verses "all men" I mentioned the same way. I just feel "all kinds of men" is a consistent reformed exegeses of this passage. Though Calvin and some others may disagree or see this in a different light that doesn't mean that they were immune of possibly performing eisegesis rather than exegesis in this particular instance.

Sidenote- When talking about condemnation and original sin, I think it's reasonable to accept "all men" as every single man in Romans 5:18 while still being consistent and interpreting "all men" as "all kinds of men" concerning the free gift of life. Though maybe it could just simply be hyperbole in Roman 5:18?

 

[God'sElectSaint]

"but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into everlasting punishment: rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1Ti_2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved; and particularly the Gentiles may be designed, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature; whom God would have saved, as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, were to be prayed for as well as Jewish ones."- John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

 

[PaulMc]

I still don't quite understand the God's Revealed Will interpretation? Can someone explain a little more ? Kinda like Matthew said I can only see it as all kinds of men but I am willing to try and understand the other interpretation.

Although John Owen disagrees that the revealed will is that which is intended in this passage, he discusses what it would mean if it were the will referred to here:

'The will of God is usually distinguished into his will intending and his will commanding', so that if the 'will' here indicated the "voluntate signi" (which Owen denies anyway), then the verse is 'the same with that of the apostle in another place, "God commandeth all men everywhere to repent."'

In denying that this verse refers to all men indiscriminately, he also says (p.346) that 'All shall be saved whom God would have to be saved; this we dare not deny, for "who hath resisted his will?" Seeing, then, it is most certain that all shall not be saved (for some shall stand on the left hand), it cannot be that the universality of men should be intended in this place.'

Suffice to say that Owen took 'all' here to refer to all kinds of men, as others in this thread have already made clear.

 

[MW]

No, Francis Turretin is not referring to Amyrauldians as 'other orthodox men' in that passage. Turretin's chapter is arguing against Amyrauldianism, and the 'other orthodox men' that Turretin refers to are those who held to limited atonement, etc. Feel free to read the larger chapter of Turretin's to see this.

I cannot find a reference to "other orthodox men" in this section of Turretin. "They" refers to "some" who are left unidentified in this section. As he continues his discussion of this passage Turretin specifically refers to "the authors of this new method" (p. 410). He particularly frees Calvin from the interpretation of the new methodists by appeal to Calvin's explanation of this passage.