1 Timothy 2:4 - the Calvinist interpretation is hopelessly incoherent

squirrelyguy

Well-known member
God desires "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:4)

The Calvinist replies, the "all men" in this verse means "the elect only."

The reason? The context mentions specifically only certain types of men (namely kings and those who are in authority - vv. 1-2), so therefore this "all men" must be limited in scope.

The problem? This use of the context, if consistently followed, would do no favors for the Calvinist. For it is obviously not true that ALL kings are saved. "But" replies the Calvinist, "the 'all men' in v. 4 doesn't refer to all kings and all in authority, but to the elect among those kings and those in authority."

Say what? How is this not hopelessly incoherent? How can vv. 1-2 limit the scope of the "all men" to just kings and those in authority without requiring us to think that God wants all kings and those in authority (without exception) to be saved?

Thus it is not enough for the Calvinist to demonstrate that the "all men" is limited in scope to "kings and those in authority" (which is a tall order by itself). They also must somehow limit it further to the elect only out of all kings and those in authority. On what textual basis can they do this?
 
Why are all men not saved?
Jesus answered this in John 3:19-20.

Joh 3:19-20 WEB 19 This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed.

This does not however mean that Jesus excluded them from the opportunity to be saved.

They simply don't want to.
They loved their sin more than they loved the truth.

Paul too describes this in 2 Thessalonians 2.

2Th 2:10-12 WEB 10 and with all deception of wickedness for those who are being lost, because they didn’t receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 Because of this, God sends them a powerful delusion, that they should believe a lie, 12 that they all might be judged who didn’t believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Again, the refusal to love the truth, and instead, taking pleasure in unrighteousness.

The offer/opportunity to be saved still exists until death. Then.... the door shuts, and those who refuse to follow Jesus perish.

So, whosoever wants to come to Jesus is welcome. John 6:37. He will not turn away anyone who comes to him.

And I say- until death, because of Hebrews 7:25...

God saves to the uttermost all who come to him through Jesus Christ.
 
God desires "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:4)

The Calvinist replies, the "all men" in this verse means "the elect only."

Please provide a LINKED QUOTE where any Calvinist has argued, that "all men" means 'the elect only".
 
The offer/opportunity to be saved still exists until death. Then.... the door shuts, and those who refuse to follow Jesus perish.
John 6:65 seems to disgree. 65 Then Jesus said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him.”

This would mean by default those who are not granted...can't come to Christ. They have no free-choice to follow Jesus.

Does this mean that once God "grants" you....you can refuse Jesus?
 
John 6:65 seems to disgree. 65 Then Jesus said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him.”

This would mean by default those who are not granted...can't come to Christ. They have no free-choice to follow Jesus.

Does this mean that once God "grants" you....you can refuse Jesus?
Not arguing that.

Jesus said in John 6:37 that he won't turn away anyone who comes to him.

Furthermore, only those whom the Father gives, will come.

Be careful not to so narrowly focus your thinking as to exclude whoever comes.

Furthermore, even Jesus gives us a parable that tells his servants to not try to weed out the tares from among the wheat, lest the wheat be damaged.

Jesus is more than capable of handling the people who don't actually want to be with him.

Remember.... this is a relationship between us, as individuals, and Jesus and his Father, in community.

People who don't want to know him will ultimately exclude themselves, and, as we read in John 6:66, leave of their own accord.

Our job is to encourage as many as possible to come follow Jesus.

We then have the one lost sheep vs the 99 secure sheep....
 
Not arguing that.

Jesus said in John 6:37 that he won't turn away anyone who comes to him.

Furthermore, only those whom the Father gives, will come.

Be careful not to so narrowly focus your thinking as to exclude whoever comes.

Furthermore, even Jesus gives us a parable that tells his servants to not try to weed out the tares from among the wheat, lest the wheat be damaged.

Jesus is more than capable of handling the people who don't actually want to be with him.

Remember.... this is a relationship between us, as individuals, and Jesus and his Father, in community.

People who don't want to know him will ultimately exclude themselves, and, as we read in John 6:66, leave of their own accord.

Our job is to encourage as many as possible to come follow Jesus.

We then have the one lost sheep vs the 99 secure sheep....
I agree..."Our job is to encourage as many as possible to come follow Jesus. "

We don't know who God has "granted" and not "granted".
I simply assume or should I say treat everyone as if they have been granted.
 
I agree..."Our job is to encourage as many as possible to come follow Jesus. "

We don't know who God has "granted" and not "granted".
I j assume or should I say treat everyone as if they have been granted.
Thus my contention with the present day understanding of calvinism.

🤷🏽‍♂️

I just read an OP saying that bad press on calvinism is calling for a renaming to "Leightonism."

The most recent study on it dates back to 1935, when my dad was born.... that strikes me as a serious reach into a hat looking for rabbits.
 
Thus my contention with the present day understanding of calvinism.

🤷🏽‍♂️

I just read an OP saying that bad press on calvinism is calling for a renaming to "Leightonism."

The most recent study on it dates back to 1935, when my dad was born.... that strikes me as a serious reach into a hat looking for rabbits.
In regard to the Calvinism debate I could be wrong but I think is a modern made up term with nothing to do with the 1935 guy

I am curious to see where the phrase came from
 
In regard to the Calvinism debate I could be wrong but I think is a modern made up term with nothing to do with the 1935 guy

I am curious to see where the phrase came from
It struck me as almost a tongue in cheek, or knee jerk reaction to the conflict people have with calvinism.

I feel for guys named Leighton in circles where calvinism is discussed....

It just seems cruel.

Although, I'd guess that people named Calvin probably feel slighted too.... 🤷🏽‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️
 
It struck me as almost a tongue in cheek, or knee jerk reaction to the conflict people have with calvinism.

I feel for guys named Leighton in circles where calvinism is discussed....

It just seems cruel.

Although, I'd guess that people named Calvin probably feel slighted too.... 🤷🏽‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️
I suspect it was made up recently and concerns Leighton Flowers a former Calvinist turned provisionist
 
Jesus said in John 6:37 that he won't turn away anyone who comes to him.

Furthermore, only those whom the Father gives, will come.

Our job is to encourage as many as possible to come follow Jesus.

But of what value is our "encouragement" if God doesn't draw them?
Your theology is "hopelessly incoherent".
 
I suspect it was made up recently and concerns Leighton Flowers a former Calvinist turned provisionist
Ah.

That would make sense.

Sounds like a way to justify vilifying someone who saw the truth about it and those who remain aren't seeing what Leighton saw.
 
Ah.

That would make sense.

Sounds like a way to justify vilifying someone who saw the truth about it and those who remain aren't seeing what Leighton saw.
Yes and I would not be surprised if the author of the op coined it but maybe not
 
God desires "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:4)

The Calvinist replies, the "all men" in this verse means "the elect only."

The reason? The context mentions specifically only certain types of men (namely kings and those who are in authority - vv. 1-2), so therefore this "all men" must be limited in scope.

The problem? This use of the context, if consistently followed, would do no favors for the Calvinist. For it is obviously not true that ALL kings are saved. "But" replies the Calvinist, "the 'all men' in v. 4 doesn't refer to all kings and all in authority, but to the elect among those kings and those in authority."

Say what? How is this not hopelessly incoherent? How can vv. 1-2 limit the scope of the "all men" to just kings and those in authority without requiring us to think that God wants all kings and those in authority (without exception) to be saved?

Thus it is not enough for the Calvinist to demonstrate that the "all men" is limited in scope to "kings and those in authority" (which is a tall order by itself). They also must somehow limit it further to the elect only out of all kings and those in authority. On what textual basis can they do this?
Obviously all in authority does not mean all the elect in authority

Nor can anyone imagine all in authority are elect

so the op is correct the Calvinist interpretation is hopelessly incoherent
 
Obviously all in authority does not mean all the elect in authority

Nor can anyone imagine all in authority are elect

so the op is correct the Calvinist interpretation is hopelessly incoherent

Why do you guys perpetuate the worthless straw-man that we allegedly teach "all men" means "only the elect"?

Please provide a LINKED QUOTE of any Calvinist making such an assertion.
 
Back
Top