1 Timothy 4:10 - Especially those that Believe

Dan (Arminian) and Turretinfan (Calvinist) discuss 1 Tim 4:10, and briefly answer a question from the David Pallmann/Derick Murrell debate regarding foreknowledge and the atonement.   The main points of disconcurrance on 1 Tim 4:10 were the meaning of "savior" and "especially".

Background 

  • 1 Timothy is Paul’s letter to his traveling companion, Timothy, who he sent to the Church he started in Ephesus to deal with some heretics, including Alexander and Hymenaeus. 
  • He only reveals bits and pieces about the heresy, but it involved miss-use of the law, forbidding marriage, food restrictions, and exercise.
  • 2 Timothy (Titus, 2 Peter and 1 John) deal with the same heresy, some early form of Gnosticism (think Dan Brown DaVinci code type stuff)
  • Christ die for all verses Hebrews 2:9, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, John 12:32, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15
    • Directly addresses the extent of the atonement
    • Similar to the “World” texts, but all is an open ended, distributive term, whereas world is a large, but closed term.

Text

1 Timothy 4:6If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed. 7But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness. 8For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come. 9This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10For to this end [c]we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 11These things command and teach.

Initial Reaction

In 1 Timothy 4:10 we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.  These things command and teach.

  • Very simple, but important statement
  • Most people would read this and immediately know that Paul didn’t believe in limited atonement
  • If he did believe in limited atonement, he expresses himself very, very poorly.

Two Challenges for 5 Point Calvinists

  • 5 Point Calvinists have all the questions to answer related to “all men”
  • And in this passage an additional issue of “especially those would believe, which subdivides “all men”

Briefly Analysis of “all men”

  • First, let me dismiss the cases where someone might say “all men” but not mean the concept all men. 
    • Lying, kidding, exaggerating, guessing….
    • The concept all men includes each and every person. 
  • The concept “men” comes from your experience in meeting people and seeing their similarities.  They are rational and made in God’s image, so we think of them as humans, not rocks or fish.
    • You don’t know all men, but whenever you meet people, you will acknowledge they are included within all men.
    • When Paul says all men, no one could introduce someone to Paul and Paul would say, that person isn’t included in “all men”. 
      • That person shares the definitional characteristics of “human”, and therefore they are included.
  • Contrast to brings clarity, so here are some attempts that don’t work
    • All without distinction, but not all without exception
      • In this context, all without distinction is all without exception
      • Who could you bring to Paul and have him say, no he’s not included?
      • The distinction is humanity, not some other distinction.
    • All kinds of men
      • God could have inspired Paul to say all kinds, but He didn’t, he said all men. (Charles Spurgeon, Salvation by Knowing the Truth, Sermon (1516))
      • Christ died for people, not the characteristics by which we organize people – did Christ die for red hair or redheads?
      • Unbelievers are a kind of man.
      • Again, kinds includes the people and this is all men.
    • Jews and Gentiles
      • Again, which descendant of Jacob are you going to bring to Paul and have him say, he’s not a Jew?
      • So this still means all men.
    • All geographic areas
      • Again, which European are you going to bring to Paul and have him say, he’s not a European?
    • The elect or some people in all categories. – that’s not what all means.
      • Owen’s tried this.  The world means the elect in all locations. 
      • The problem is usage.  World and all men are simply never used that way.  See D.A. Carson. 

Analysis of especially of those who believe.

  • Take the range of numbers 1, 2 and 3.  Especially is a superlative, so we could say 3 is the highest in the set.  Now, if we drop the 1 and 2 and just say 3 = 3, there’s no superlative left.  In the same way, if all men = believers, then there’s no room for the superlative, especially those who believe.  So that’s not just a redundancy, but rather it’s illogical. 
  • All men is subdivided into two buckets – believers and non-believers.  This runs counter to a common Calvinist understanding of all men meaning believers in different locations or believers of different races.
  • Especially - chiefly, most of all, above all, a form of argument, a fortiori, superlative of μαλα mala (very) Thayers, Liddell-Scott-Jones and BDAG do not list “namely”. 
    • See Kim, The Interpretation of μάλιστα in 1 Timothy 5:17 for arguments against "namely"
    • Namely runs against Presbyterian ecclesiology in 1 Timothy 5:17, eliminating the only reference to non-teaching elders. 

Why is God called Savoir, rather than Christ? 

  • God sent Christ and saves us through Christ.
  • In 1 Timothy 1:1, 2:3, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, Paul refers to the father as our Savior.

What does Savoir Mean?

  • In the OT testament, in very different contexts like a battle, sometimes savoir doesn’t refer to soteriology, but rather to preservation of life from some grave threat. But in the NT, when used of God, it’s always soteriological, and there were many martyrs in the early church.  It’s fine to expand the scope from salvation in the life to come to our happiness through trials here.  It doesn’t make sense to say God saves non-believers happiness despite their efforts through trials.
  • Savior – doesn’t have to mean salvation is completed, any more than your life persevere under your airplane seat has to be used to be your life preserver. Thus God is the savior of all men, because He wants to and can save all men. 
Other Exegetical Details
  • But reject profane and old wives’ fables (these were the heresies Timothy was sent to deal with
  • godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come That’s both here and hereafter.
  • This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. The whole bible is worthy of acceptance, but this is emphatic for Paul.  It’s true and everyone should believe it and live it out. 
  • The suffering of the early church is apolitically relevant. 
  • For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach  - This is jargon for Paul for Christian ministry, both his and others. 1 Corinthians 15:10, Galatians 4:11, Romans 16:12, 1 Corinthians 16:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 1 Timothy 5:17 
  • Why go through the pain and opposition?  Because godliness provides us happiness and peace in this life and rewards in the next, and God will fulfill his promise.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more