Well unfortunately dear brother I'm going to reassert the same point again, because your appeal to Romans 6 indicates to me that there is still a methological problem. BTW pulling in an FVer who makes the same charge of you is a rhetorical device that distracts from the issue at hand. I am no supporter of the FV. Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes after basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture. The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner). Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context. I personally doubt that "saviour" means "benefactor" or "sustainer" because:  The argument of chapter 4 concerns what Timothy is to teach his people so that he and his people will be "saved" (v. 16). Salvation in that verse is definately a reference to eschatological salvation from sin.  Paul never elsewhere in his writings uses the word "saviour" (soter) to mean benefactor / sustainer. I personally doubt that "all" means "all kinds of people" (i.e. not only Jews) because:  There is nothing in the direct context that shows the Jew / Gentile issue is being discussed.  "All kinds of people" fits awkwardly with the following phrase no matter how we take malista ("especially", "namely"): a. If "especially": "all kinds of people especially those who believe". Especially serves to narrow the former group, hence "all kinds of people" would be a wider group than those who believe. b. If "namely": "God is the saviour of all kinds of people namely those who believe", that is, "all kinds of people" is identified by "those who believe", which is a meaningless statement. If malista meant "namely" and is to make sense in context, it would probably be something like: "all kinds of people namely Jew and Gentiles". Even if you don't agree with my exegesis thus far, you can see that there is much work to be done before the work of integration begins. I'm all for comparing Scripture with Scripture. However, to do this without prior exegesis will actually end up twisting Scripture. This is precisely how Arminians explain away various Calvinistic texts. God bless you brother.