4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
It would appear to me that the Who (God our Savior) wants ALL men to be saved (verse 4), Who gave Jesus Christ to be the mediator between God and man (Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for ALL, not just the elect).
It would appear that this passage contradicts unconditional election and irresistable grace. For if God will have all men be saved, and gave Christ as a ransom for all, then wouldn't God extend His unconditional election and irresistable grace upon all men.
Furthermore, if Christ gave Himself a ransom for ALL, then wouldn't that contradict limited atonement?
4 comments:
Brother Acker, the following two links give examples of the Calvinistic interpretation of this passage.
Section 45—1 Timothy 2:4 from The Cause of God and Truth by John Gill (1700s)
1 Timothy 2:4 - An Exegesis by Alan Kurschner (2010)
Not to sound like Bill Clinton, but what does "all" mean? Is it all the elect, all humantiy, or from all nations and tribes of men?
It makes sense for all the elect to be ransomed, and it makes sense for the ransomed to be from all nations, people groups, etc...
It can't be all humanity because we know that all humanity ultimately is not ransomed as many will be in hell.
Jesus, himself, said in Mark 10:45 that he gives himself as " a ransom for many".
If all humantiy is ransomed, why do so many still go to hell? What did the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ ACTUALLY accomplish?
Ransom for all, ransom for many, is there a contradiction in scripture here? I don't think so. The fact that God would have all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4-6, and 2 Peter 3:9) is a Biblical concept. To get around that concept, men have to redefine words.
Why would God pay for the sins of all mankind, knowing that some would still go to hell? If men go to hell with their sins paid for, what did CHrist's substitutionay atonement accomplish? It removes all excuses. Romans 1:20 says "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
No one in hell will have an excuse for being there.
If they are like the TULIPers I know, they will respond that there is a difference between his irresistable call to be saved (or anything else) and his general call. BTW, your 2 Peter reference is a great one. Not willing that any perish... as well as the "all men" in this Timothy passage. Good points.
After discussing with the TULIPers I knew round and round, I finally found it all boiled down to one thing. They believe God created certain men with the intention of sending them to Hell for His glory. They also believe He sends a general call to these to be saved. This would be contradictory. Also, when asked why they believe He would create certain men to go to Hell, then they are at a loss. They try to cop-out with "Who are we to question?" More or less, they don't know.
They also can't explain if God is willing to interfere with an irresistable call in mens' lives and delete free will, why men were created all. They can't explain why the tree was there other than to say Christ needed to be exalted. However, if God didn't create exclusive free will, then He could have just forced all men He created to exalt Christ without doing anything.
The entire idea that God doesn't have a problem pushing free-will aside would violate just about every principle of anthropology and soteriology I find in Scripture.
Post a Comment