I Timothy 2 1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to 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...
The Arminian (and other universalists) says this text is proof positive of an unlimited atonement. "Those Calvinists have to redefine 'all' to make their theology work. Saying 'all' means 'all kinds of men' is ridiculous. The context is obviously universal."
And so I tried to read the passage the way a non-arbitrary Arminian would. All means all. So, for example, we should pray for, and give thanks for, ALL those in authority. I started thinking about some in the class of "those in authority." Here's one person who came up as a member in the class:
Satan is called a prince - which is a title of authority (cf. Matt. 9:34, 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, John 12:31, John 14:30, 16:11), a ruler of a kingdom (Eph. 2:2), and a god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4).
Therefore, Satan is a member of the class of "those in authority." Since we are to pray for ALL those members in the class, we are to pray for Satan. Since we are to give thanks for all those members of the class of "those in authority," then we are to give thanks for Satan since Satan is in authority. Thank God for Satan.
Seems like an odd conclusion! I don't know, let's see what might be said in response:
1) Satan is not in authority: Okay, but it sure seems like the Bible grants him titles of authority. Princes, rulers of kingdoms, and gods seem to all be "those who are in authority." Perhaps one can say, "But he is not really in authority, God is in charge of all." Okay, but then it seems that neither are earthly kings, princes, and rulers. What would the relevant difference be?
2) It is just talking about humans in authority: Well, it doesn't say that. It says we are to pray for "ALL" of those in authority. What we've done now is to say that ALL of those in authority doesn't mean all. But say the Arminian regiments himself, digs in his heels, and says, "No, it just means humans." Okay, then:
2.1) Adolph Hitler was a human authority. He is responsible for the death of millions of Jews. If we were living back then we would have to "thank God" for Hitler.
2.2) In the early 90's "those in authority" of the "Hutu Power" regime murdered hundreds of thousands in the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis. Should we pray with a heart fo thanksgiving for the Hutu leaders?
2.3) Depending on where you are eschatologically, there will arise the worst of all of "those in authority" -- the antichrist. Many Arminians are futurists who believe that there will be a world leader who will lead the forces of evil against God's saints. He will try to force people to obey his law, perhaps even making them have chips implanted in their hands and heads so they cannot buy or sell (one thing I wouldn't "buy" is this theory, but that's me). We should "thank God" for this man (well, those who haven't been raptured!).
No, that's not what the verse means. We obviously don't thank God for those kinds of leaders. Just your normal ones. The pagan who tries to do good. Tries to be fair and just. Those kinds of leaders.
Now what has happened? "all those in authority" has been "reinterpreted" to mean "all kinds of those in authority." But(!), all means all. What about 1 Timothy 2:5? Us Calvinists say that Jesus redeemed "all kinds of men." The Arminian can't have that, because then it ruins the ruling dogma of the
Well, what started off as a fine, brash hypothesis, has now died the death of a thousand qualifications.
A few questions on this, with respect,
ReplyDelete1) Is Satan in what one could call legitimate authority? I know it refers to him as principality, prince, etc, but an authority?
2) Doesn't it seem that the psg refers to HUMANS, thus counting Satan out?
3) Should believers not have prayed for Hitler in the 40s? I'm sure you think believers should have, that he would repent, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life instead of one where we're dodging night bombing raids for years, etc.
4) Could believers not indeed give thanks for those who are in authority, even when they're as bad as Hitler, b/c God has seen fit to put that ruler in place for His reasons and His glory?
5) Do you believe that God does not indeed desire all men to be saved?
Again, I ask these with respect and hoping for honest answers; my questions are not rhetorical. I'm actually trying to get to a better understanding of this issue and have no desire to act like Dave Hunt.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
1)Agree
ReplyDelete2)Agree
3)Believers should have prayed that God's will be done when it came to Hitler.But should thanks be given to a man like that?
No. But if "all means all" then you have to give thanks to any and all leaders that are put above us. Including Hitler. because "All means all"
But all doesn't mean all like the Arminian would like us to believe.
The biggest issue that the church struggled with was the Jew/Gentile distiction. You see it in the Gospels, you see it in Acts, you see it addressed in almost every book in the New Testiment. Lets put it this way. For thousands of years, you are taught that the Gentiles are dogs with no redeeming quality and that God's people are found in Israel exclusively.
What is your reaction going to be when Christ says "For God so loved the world". In a nut shell God's people are not found in Israel exclusively But are found in every nation and in every people.
Then read in the book of Acts and Galatians who mightly they struggled with the concept. That is a true application of the "all" passages.
4) In a sense. We should always glory that God's will is being done. But I don't believe this is the same thing the verse is talking about.
5) see 3)
Rhology,
ReplyDelete1) It mentions "kings" as one in authority. Why not "princes" and "rulers?" Note: this point *needs* to be established because I can see you moved on to all human questions. If Satan is indeed included, then there's even bigger problems.
2) The passage says "all those in authority." If all means all without exception, why the exception? Now, if we're going to make this about "legitimate" authorities, then we're saying that "all those in authority" means "all kinds of those in authority." But, what if it does just mean humans:
3) How about giving thanks for? That's what I said. I didn't say we shouldn't have prayed for Hitler. But, i don't think we should have given thanks for him.
4) I can see thanking God for some circumstances brought about by Hitler. I wouldn't thank God for Hitler qua ruthless dictator. Hitler qua Hitler.
5) Though we can apply some two-willed distinctions to unbelievers in Scripture, I don't know about this particular one. In fact, in Romans God is said to *desire* to show his wrath.
Paul et al,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your answers and gentle tone. ;-) I'm working thru this stuff...
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteSteve has ordered me to go through sensitivity training. All the T-bloggers are chipping in; it costs a pretty penny. You only have them to thank for my gentile tone. I just got done with the How To Love and Cuddle With Your Kitten class. I'm a new man.
I'd just add that St. Paul's remarks have immediate reference to political authority in the 1C Roman Empire. Given the way in which the transfer of power and nasty battles over succession actually took place, the question of "legitimate" authority has less to do with de jure authority than with de facto authority.
ReplyDeleteDear Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe passage is scoped to all men, ie all within the category of mankind, so Satan is scoped out. It is teaching we should pray on everyone's behalf, so yes we should pray even for evil leaders. Perhaps we should pray the hardest for them. As for thanksgiving, I am not sure the passage is teaching us to be thankful for what they do but rather what God is doing for them.
I don't think the passage could be teaching God wants all "kinds" of men to be saved. Kinds of men, or rather categories of men are just abstract attributes we use to group people. God saves people rather than categories. If you meant God wants to save "men" of all "kinds", you are now not only implying “kinds“, but also rearranging the text. I just don't see any contextual justification for these two moves. It's much better to go with the strait forward reading.
God Bless,
Dan
Why would a Calvinist of all people not thank God for Satan? You guys beleive that God predestined everything, even Adam's sin in the garden. God decreed it all. Nobody aint got no free will, right? That's what you say. So now you're changing your mind and saying that God didn't make Satan do what Satan does? God didn't decree Hitler to kill all them Jews? God didn't decree Stalin to do what he done? You guys must have accidentally converted to Arminianism in your sleep. But you all thank your god for Satan everyday, or rather you thank Satan for Satan, since your God is Satan.
ReplyDeleteFIRST, (yoder) he says thanks FOR not To.
ReplyDeleteSECOND, the logical conclusion would not be that all does not mean all, but that indeed even the most wicked of men do somethings good and God is to be thanked for whatever they do right. Clinton was a horrible President, but Republicans can still thank God for the one or two things he got right. The same with Bush to the Democrats. Hitler basically got Volkswagon started. So although basically everything else he did was evil, at least he had the Germans start making cheap cars: you can at least thank God for that.
Dan is right about the textual issues. The authority referred to is human authority. So we are not to pray for angels, whether evil like Satan or good angels. The text also gives the purpose for this prayer is to keep things peaceable and tranquil, presumably so that opportunities to evangelize would be afforded.
ReplyDeleteIronically, tonight I was listening to a Calvary Chapel pastor teaching on this very passage and he quoted John Calvin of all people to support the view which Manata is arguing against. That is ironic and also shows how ignorant Manata is of his own exegetical tradition. Does anyone following this discussion have Calvin's commentary and comments available to them? It would be great if you could simply quote Calvin for everyone following the thread, on this passage in 1 Timothy 2. Calvin makes it very clear that he holds what Manata is arguing is the Arminian position regarding praying for those in authority even when they are evil people.
Ex-Calvinist
Obviously I don't think the passage is talking about Satan and other "authorities," ....but, and here's the big but, the Arminian has a problem of consistency here:
ReplyDeleteIt says ALL of those in authority.
So, Satan et al are members of the class of "those in authority."
Now, IF the "all" refers to all the members of the class, then you have to thank God for Satan.
But, says that Arminian, all doesn't mean all. All does not refer to all the members of "those in authority."
Okay, well I don't think "all" when used before "men" refers to all in the class of "men" (human beings).
So, what's the problem? if it is "all means and so the referent of the quantifier is all the members of the class," then why isn't it that way in the case of "those in authority?" I mean, the text doesn't explicitly say, "Okay, I'm talking about human authorities," now does it?
Godismyjudge says Satan is "scoped out" because the scope is "mankind." Okay, and non-elect are "scoped out" because "men" is "all in the class of elect men." The Arminian doesn't get to have his cake and eat it too.
But, even if I grant that it means men, you have the problem of thanking God for men like Hitler. Godismyjudge said we should pray for them. Okay, this first assumes that Satan isn't included. Why pray for him? Second, my point with humans was thanksgiving. The text says thanksgiving is to be made *for* all those in authority. If the "all" has universal reference, then let's look at one member in the class of "all humans in authority."
Take Chief Justice Taney in his decision on the Dred Scott trial. Taney ruled that the drafters of the Constitution had viewed all African-Americans as
"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
So Dred Scott should have thanked God for judge Taney. Perhaps his slave masters as well since they were "humans in authority."
We can go on. Stalan, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, &c!
Thus, even granting that Satan is not included - which I'm not willing to grant that the Arminian can cogently and consistently make that case - we still have prima facie absurd conclusions.
Ego has never interacted with me. Every time I have responded to him he ignores me. I don't know why I should interact with him. Why is it my job to make sure people understand the positions they publicly critique. for example, here's a snippet of his understanding of compatibilist freedom: " So now you're changing your mind and saying that God didn't make Satan do what Satan does?" It's not a changing fo the mind, Ego. No Calvinist that I know has said that God *makes* people do what he ordains they do. Next, he commits a category fallacy. That God decreed all things, and his entire plan, as a whole, is good, that doesn't mean that he, or we, are pleased with every single *part* of the whole. He then implies that our recognition of evil, and our hatred of evil, means that "we have accidentally converted to Arminianism in our sleep. Despite this rather stupid and cliché joke, why would he think the Calvinist must "WUV" evil:
Romans 12:9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil
Our love must be sincere. A sincere love is one that will hate evil.
So, that we wouldn't "wuv" Satan, and evil men and deeds, isn't inconsistent with Calvinism. Indeed, it is part and parcel to the discriminatory - IOW, biblical notion of - essence of saving love found in Scripture. That's why the salvation of Jesus people is pictured as marriage. That kind of love is special, unique, and discriminatory. Ego's notion of "wuv" is that he should sleep with his wife...and all of ours! Keep that guy away from your wife!
Ex-Calvinist - and he's not, he's lying - simply asserts that the "all" used to quantify the class of "those in authority" simply means humans. So, the all doesn't refer to all the members of the class of "those in authority." Well, that's what we believe about "all" and the referent "men." So, don't get on us for what you yourself do. He then talks about "presumables." First, I don't know where he's been for the last 50 years. Has he tried to "evangelize" in some parts of Afghanistan? They'll kill you for that. But, Ex-Calvinist says those men should "thank God" for those Muslim terrorist leaders who rape their wives and kill their children. Dear God, thank you for the Taliban, especially that guy who raped my wife and killed my children. "All" means "all" when referring to "those humans in authority," right?
Then Ex-Calvinist calls me ignorant of my position. Presumably he's ignorant as to what an *internal* critique is. And, I don't know what aspect of my position he's referring two. And, so what if I don't agree with Calvin? That hardly makes me "ignorant" of his position.
Calvin does say,
"so also to give thanks on account of their prosperity and success."
Now if we take this in the sense of the reductio I'm offering:
"Dear God, thank you for the success of those Muslim authorities who raped my wife and killed my children. Thank you for their prosperity, even though they have stolen from me in order to become rich."
About the authorities Calvin says that we are to,
"to desire that it may remain in force."
Is this Ex-Calvinists opinion? if he was alive in the 40's would he have "desired" to see Hitler remain in force? How about today? Did he desire to see Saddam remain "in force?" How about the Hutu regime? Should the Tutsis have desired to see them "remain in force?"
No, perhaps Calvin too restricts the meaning. He refers to magistrates who,
"restrain the hardihood of wicked men [so that] every place would [not] be full of robberies and murders."
I doubt he'd say the same for Hitler's Germany. Amin's Uganda. Stalin's Russian gulags where an estimated 700,000 died unjust deaths.
In fact, what does he say the magistrate should do:
"On the other hand, princes, and all who hold the office of magistracy, are here reminded of their duty. It is not enough, if, by giving to every one what is due, they restrain all acts of violence, and maintain peace; but they must likewise endeavor to promote religion, and to regulate morals by wholesome discipline. The exhortation of David (Psalm 2:12) to “kiss the Son,” and the prophecy of Isaiah, that they shall be nursing — fathers of the Church, (Isaiah 49:23,) are not without meaning; and, therefore, they have no right to flatter themselves, if they neglect to lend their assistance to maintain the worship of God."
Did you pastor read that, too? Do you agree with that, too? Or just the parts you liked?
And, lastly, Calvin does agree with me about the extent of "all." He says,
"But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations."
So, I'd actually do my homework before I accused others of not doing theirs.
Per Ex-Calvinist's request, Calvin's Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:1-4. His view appears to be that praying for and thanking God for kings et al. who are even 'sworn enemies of Christ' is meant as a pious exercise to guard the Christian's mind against hatred, but you can read it for yourself.
ReplyDelete1. I exhort therefore. These exercises of godliness maintain and even strengthen us in the sincere worship and fear of God, and cherish the good conscience of which he had spoken. Not inappropriately does he make use of the word therefore, to denote an inference; for those exhortations depend on the preceding commandment.
That, above all, prayers be made. First, he speaks of public prayers, which he enjoins to be offered, not only for believers, but for all mankind. Some might reason thus with themselves: "Why should we be anxious about the salvation of unbelievers, with whom we have no connection? Is it not enough, if we, who are brethren, pray mutually for our brethren, and recommend to God the whole of his Church? for we have nothing to do with strangers." This perverse view Paul meets, and enjoins the Ephesians to include in their prayers all men, and not to limit them to the body of the Church.
What is the difference between three out of the four kinds which Paul enumerates, I own that I do not thoroughly understand. The view given by Augustine, who twists Paul's words so as to denote ceremonial observances customary at that time, is quite childish. A simpler exposition is given by those who think that "requests" are when we ask to be delivered from what is evil; "prayers," when we desire to obtain something profitable; and "supplications," when we deplore before God injuries which we have endured. Yet for my own part, I do not draw the difference so ingeniously; or, at least, I prefer another way of distinguishing them.
Proseucai< is the Greek word for every kind of prayer; and deh>seiv denotes those forms of petitions in which something definite is asked. In this way the two words agree with each other, as genus and species. jEnteu>xeiv is the word commonly used by Paul to signify those prayers which we offer for one another. The word used for it in the Latin Translation is "intercessiones," intercessions. Yet Plato, in his second dialogue, styled Alcibiades, uses it in a different sense, to moan a definite petition offered by a person for himself; and in the very inscription of the book, and in many passages, he shows plainly, as I have said, that proseuch< is a general term. 1
But not to dwell longer than is proper on a matter that is not essential, Paul, in my own opinion, simply enjoins that, whenever public prayers are offered, petitions and supplications should be made for all men, even for those who at present are not at all related to us. And yet this heaping up of words is not superfluous; but Paul appears to me purposely to join together three terms for the same purpose, in order to recommend more warmly, and urge more strongly, earnest and constant prayer. We know now sluggish we are in this religious duty; and therefore we need not wonder if, for the purpose of arousing us to it, the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, employs various excitements.
And thanksgivings. As to this term, there is no obscurity security; for, as he bids us make supplication to God for the salvation of unbelievers, so also to give thanks on account of their prosperity and success. That wonderful goodness which he shews every day, when
"he maketh his sun to rise on the good and the bad,"(Matthew 5:45,)
is worthy of being praised; and our love of our neighbor ought also to extend to those who are unworthy of it.
2. For kings. He expressly mentions kings and other magistrates because, more than all others, they might be hated by Christians. All the magistrates who existed at that time were so many sworn enemies of Christ; and therefore this thought might occur to them, that they ought not to pray for those who devoted all their power and all their wealth to fight against the kingdom of Christ, the extension of which is above all things desirable. The apostle meets this difficulty, and expressly enjoins Christians to pray for them also. And, indeed, the depravity of men is not a reason why God's ordinance should not be loved. Accordingly, seeing that God appointed magistrates and princes for the preservation of mankind, however much they fall short of the divine appointment, still we must not on that account cease to love what belongs to God, and to desire that it may remain in force. That is the reason why believers, in whatever country they live, must not only obey the laws and the government of magistrates, but likewise in their prayers supplicate God for their salvation. Jeremiah said to the Israelites,
"Pray for the peace of Babylon, for in their peace ye shall have peace." (Jeremiah 29:7.)
The universal doctrine is this, that we should desire the continuance and peaceful condition of those governments which have been appointed by God.
That we may lead a peaceful and quiet life. By exhibiting the advantage, he holds out an additional inducement, for he enumerates the fruits which are yielded to us by a well regulated government. The first is a peaceful life; for magistrates are armed with the sword, in order to keep us in peace. If they did not restrain the hardihood of wicked men, every place would be full of robberies and murders. The true way of maintaining peace, therefore, is, when every one obtains what is his own, and the violence of the more powerful is kept under restraint.
With all godliness and decency. The second fruit is the preservation of godliness, that is, when magistrates give themselves to promote religion, to maintain the worship of God, and to take care that sacred ordinances be observed with due reverence. The third fruit is the care of public decency; for it is also the business of magistrates to prevent men from abandoning themselves to brutal filthiness or flagitious conduct, but, on the contrary, to promote decency and moderation. If these three things are taken away, what will be the condition of human life? If, therefore, we are at all moved by solicitude about the peace of society, or godliness, or decency, let us remember that we ought also to be solicitous about those through whose agency we obtain such distinguished benefits.
Hence we conclude, that fanatics, who wish to have magistrates taken away, are destitute of all humanity, and breathe nothing but cruel barbarism. How different is it to say, that we ought to pray for kings, in order that justice and decency may prevail, and to say, that not only the name of kingly power, but all government, is opposed to religion! We have the Spirit of God for the Author of the former sentiment, and therefore the latter must be from the Devil.
If any one ask, Ought we to pray for kings, from whom we obtain none of these advantages? I answer, the object of our prayer is, that, guided by the Spirit of God, they may begin to impart to us those benefits of which they formerly deprived us. It is our duty, therefore, not only to pray for those who are already worthy, but we must pray to God that he may make bad men good. We must always hold by this principle, that magistrates were appointed by God for the protection of religion, as well as of the peace and decency of society, in exactly the same manner that the earth is appointed to produce food. 2 Accordingly, in like manner as, when we pray to God for our daily bread, we ask him to make the earth fertile by his blessing; so in those benefits of which we have already spoken, we ought to consider the ordinary means which he has appointed by his providence for bestowing them.
To this must be added, that, if we are deprived of those benefits the communication of which Paul assigns to magistrates, that is through our own fault. It is the wrath of God that renders magistrates useless to us, in the same manner that it renders the earth barren; and, therefore, we ought to pray for the removal of those chastisements which have been brought upon us by our sins.
On the other hand, princes, and all who hold the office of magistracy, are here reminded of their duty. It is not enough, if, by giving to every one what is due, they restrain all acts of violence, and maintain peace; but they must likewise endeavor to promote religion, and to regulate morals by wholesome discipline. The exhortation of David (Psalm 2:12) to "kiss the Son," and the prophecy of Isaiah, that they shall be nursing -- fathers of the Church, (Isaiah 49:23,) are not without meaning; and, therefore, they have no right to fatter themselves, if they neglect to lend their assistance to maintain the worship of God.
3. For this is good and acceptable before God. After having taught that what he enjoined is useful, he now brings forward a stronger argument -- that it pleases God; for when we know what His will, this ought to have the force of all possible reasons. By good he means what is proper and lawful; and, since the will of God is the rule by which all our duties must be regulated, he proves that it is right because it pleases God.
This passage is highly worthy of observation; and, first, we draw from it the general doctrine, that the true rule for acting well and properly is to look to the will of God, and not to undertake anything but what he approves. Next, there is likewise laid down a rule for godly prayer, that we should follow God as our leader, and that all our prayer should be regulated by his will and command. If due force had been allowed to this argument, the prayers of Papists, in the present day, would not have abounded with so many corruptions. For how will they prove that they have the authority of God for having recourse to dead men as their intercessors, or for praying for the dead? In short, in all their form of prayer, what can they point out that is pleasing to God?
4. Who wishes that all men may be saved. Here follows a confirmation of the second argument; and what is more reasonable than that all our prayers should be in conformity with this decree of God?
And may come to the acknowledgment of the truth. Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth. This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is: proved from the effect; for, if
"the gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth," (Romans 1:16,)
it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life. In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life.
Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "If God" say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the: will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man.
But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. That God wishes the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident from the passages already quoted, and from other passages of a similar nature. Not without good reason was it said, "Now, kings, understand," and again, in the same Psalm,
"I will give thee the Gentiles for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for a possession." (Psalm 2:8-10.)
In a word, Paul intended to shew that it is our duty to consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be. Now the duty arising: out of that love which we owe to our neighbor is, to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling, and to testify this by godly prayers.
With the same view does he call God our Savior; for whence do we obtain salvation but from the undeserved kindness of God? Now the same God who has already made us partakers of salvation may sometime extend his grace to them also. He who hath already drawn us to him may draw them along with us. The Apostle takes for granted that God will do so, because it had been thus foretold by the predictions of the prophets, concerning all ranks and all nations.
Calvin makes God only to want all types of men to be saved, not all individual men and thus represents a false god who takes pleasure in the death of the sinner rather than Jehovah who specifically says "I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore TURN YOURSELVES, and live ye" (Ezek 18:32) and "As I live, saith the Lord GOD,"--see he even confirms it with an oath!--"I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: TURN YE, TURN YE from your evil ways;" (Ezek 33:11) Here we clearly see the monstrous nature of Calvin's god, in that he (quite the opposite of Jehovah) does NOT want the wicked to turn from his evil way and live but to continue in it and be damned.
Anonywuss said:
ReplyDelete---
Calvin makes God only to want all types of men to be saved, not all individual men...
---
Actually God said that.
Continuing, Anonywuss said:
---
Calvin makes God only to want all types of men to be saved, not all individual men and thus represents a false god who takes pleasure in the death of the sinner...
---
How does it follow that if God does not wish for person A to be saved that He takes pleasure in the death of person A?
Not that I expect logic from the likes of ye.
Anonywuss concludes:
---
Here we clearly see the monstrous nature of Calvin's god, in that he (quite the opposite of Jehovah) does NOT want the wicked to turn from his evil way and live but to continue in it and be damned.
---
Which is about the stupidest thing you've said yet. Has it ever occured to you that all the Elect began as wicked people and that when God saves the Elect He does, indeed, turn them from their evil way?
Of course not. Because God forbid you actually read the Bible before you slander those who already have.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteEgoMakarios - enough with the "Calvinist God is Satan" stuff. How ludicrous.
Paul M,
Trying to get to the bottom of this still, you've got my brain juices flowing.
Satan et al are members of the class of "those in authority."
No, look at the text again:
I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
1) The set is "all men". The subset is kings and all who are in authority.
2) Satan is not a man.
3) Why would we pray on behalf of Satan in order that we may live a tranquil and quiet life?
4) I'd add that, if this is all classes of men, wouldn't that mean that we should pray only for all classes of kings and those in authority? Would a prayer along those lines therefore be: "Dear God, please give wisdom and the fear of you to all the Emperors out there, all the kings, all the Presidents, all the Prime Ministers..." etc? We wouldn't really be naming names then, would we?
the text doesn't explicitly say, "Okay, I'm talking about human authorities," now does it?
Yes it does, see above. And this seems to be the foundation of a lot of your most recent comment. I think your point needs to be developed more.
and non-elect are "scoped out" because "men" is "all in the class of elect men."
1) On what contextual basis?
2) So we're not actually supposed to pray for all men, but only the elect? Isn't it a major point of 5-pt Calvinist theology that you don't know who the elect are? Are you just supposed to pray for "the elect" and never mention anyone by name?
you have the problem of thanking God for men like Hitler.
1) Why not? He was a terrible sinner, yes. I was too before I was saved. And Hitler's actions paved the way for a fair amount of polemical arguments against anti-theism and fascism, did they not?
2) God works all things after the counsel of His will. I'm sure you'd agree that includes Hitler. Shall we not thank God for what He has done in the world?
Dred Scott should have thanked God for judge Taney.
So Dred Scott should NOT have thanked God for directing his life. Is that what you are saying?
Ego has never interacted with me.
Agreed 150%. He's apparently more interested in sniping and saying stupid stuff.
his entire plan, as a whole, is good, that doesn't mean that he, or we, are pleased with every single *part* of the whole.
But He still ordained every one of those parts, did He not?
A sincere love is one that will hate evil.
Agreed, but I don't see how that rules out what I've said above about Hitler.
Dear God, thank you for the Taliban, especially that guy who raped my wife and killed my children.
...b/c you are working out Your will even thru their horrible actions. You will make good what the locusts have taken. You will work all things for my good b/c You are generous and I love you.
I'd like any and all's thoughts on all this, b/c I'm open to persuasion.
Respectfully,
Rhology
Rhology,
ReplyDelete"No, look at the text again:
I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."
1) The set is "all men". The subset is kings and all who are in authority.
2) Satan is not a man.
3) Why would we pray on behalf of Satan in order that we may live a tranquil and quiet life?
4) I'd add that, if this is all classes of men, wouldn't that mean that we should pray only for all classes of kings and those in authority? Would a prayer along those lines therefore be: "Dear God, please give wisdom and the fear of you to all the Emperors out there, all the kings, all the Presidents, all the Prime Ministers..." etc? We wouldn't really be naming names then, would we?
1. The word translated "men" is better translated "people." The ESV, among others, is better here. n the "set" is all "people."
2. Satan is a person.
But, you may say it means "all human persons."
Why would he add any sub sets, though? If "all" mean ALL, then it obviously included kings &c.
Also, with the use of kai (and) that could be adding another class. Pray for all men. And, pray for all in authority.
So, your position is not obvious.
3. We wouldn't. That's my point. But, if "all" indexed to "those in authority" excludes "some in authority" then "all" isn't used universally.
4. Not clear what you're saying here. I don't see why we wouldn't name names. "God, we thank you for Vicente Fox," for example.
"Yes it does, see above. And this seems to be the foundation of a lot of your most recent comment. I think your point needs to be developed more.'
No, it doesn't explicitly read the way you're implying. (a) It says 'people,' not men and (b) there is an "and" which could be a *conjunction* of two classes, e.g., "Spay and neuter all dogs, your Black Labs, and all cats."
"1) On what contextual basis?
2) So we're not actually supposed to pray for all men, but only the elect? Isn't it a major point of 5-pt Calvinist theology that you don't know who the elect are? Are you just supposed to pray for "the elect" and never mention anyone by name?"
1) On the basis of assertion, like he did, for purposes of reductio. Also, on the basis that "all" throughout the chapter isn't used unversally, per the reductios (another one is in v.8 He doesn't mean Satanists in Satanic Temples, right?). Also, on the basis of the analogie fide.
2) Don't know why you'd say that. I don't think the people referenced to be prayed for are elect, they could be pagan kings, presidents, etc.
"1) Why not? He was a terrible sinner, yes. I was too before I was saved. And Hitler's actions paved the way for a fair amount of polemical arguments against anti-theism and fascism, did they not?
2) God works all things after the counsel of His will. I'm sure you'd agree that includes Hitler. Shall we not thank God for what He has done in the world?"
1) I already agreed that we could thank God for the *consequences* of, say, Hitler's actions, but not for Hitler qua ruthless dictator. Not for Hutu Leaders, qua genocidal maniacs. Not for Osama Bin Laden. Not for terrorist leaders - in authority. We can thank God for what he *brings about by using them* but not then *as such.*
2) God's *plan* isn't the *men.* I can thank God for his plan, his ways, without giving thanks for the man qua racist murderer.
"So Dred Scott should NOT have thanked God for directing his life. Is that what you are saying?"
Nope.
"But He still ordained every one of those parts, did He not?"
Yes, he did. But as I said, that doesn't make *each part* an individual good. That's the fallacy of composition. This has been pointed out by Paul Helm (and our own Steve Hays :-), among others, on numerous occasions.
"Agreed, but I don't see how that rules out what I've said above about Hitler."
Well, if you don't itch there, then you're fine. I argued above that it was, to me and most people, prima facie obvious that we don't give thanksgiving for those men. To thank God for *what he brings about by those men* is another matter. I think you're conflating the two.
"...b/c you are working out Your will even thru their horrible actions. You will make good what the locusts have taken. You will work all things for my good b/c You are generous and I love you."
Then what's your problem with thanking God for Satan? He's working out his will with him, as well.
Anonymouse used this text from Eze,
ReplyDelete"TURN YE, TURN YE from your evil ways;" (Ezek 33:11)"
and tried to apply it to all men whoever when it was addressed to the covenant people.
So, anonymouse, what basis do you pick and choose texts addressed to Old Covenant members and apply it to all men whoever? For example, I can cite texts where it is taught that we should put adulterers to death, do you say that is for all men whoever? How about stoning rebellious children? Do you believe that is for all men whoever too?
I don't think you do, and so if you don't, why do you think you can do it with Eze. 33:11?
There's a certain confusion in response to Manata's post. He's not attempting to interpret the verse in context. Rather, he's applying Arminian principles to the interpretation of the verse. "All means all." That's the argument.
ReplyDeleteTo claim that this is not what the verse really means is irrelevant to Manata's argument, since he is arguing on Arminian grounds, not his own.
I'd also point out that the Reformed interpretation is quite defensible on contextual grounds. Indeed, Philip Towner, who is not even a Calvinist to my knowledge, offers an interpretation of the verse that is perfectly consonant with the Reformed doctrine of special redemption.
So this is a win-win for Manata. He wins on Arminian grounds, and he also wins on Calvinist grounds. He wins either way.
steve said...
ReplyDeleteThere's a certain confusion in response to Manata's post. He's not attempting to interpret the verse in context. Rather, he's applying Arminian principles to the interpretation of the verse. "All means all." That's the argument.
==========
Correct.
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteAnother "man" that is "in authority" is "the Pope." Should we offer up thanksgiving to God for him? Do you do so? I know how much you like the Pope! ;-)
I'd also add that in the text we are to be thankful for the authorities because they punish evil and allow us freedom of religion. Authorities that deny that - like the Pope, or Atheistic communist regimes - would seem to be exempt from the context of 1 Tim. 2. but, not so *if all means ALL."
Once again, at the risk of stating the obvious, it seems to me that Manata is posing a dilemma. In a successful dilemma, he wins the argument either way.
ReplyDeleteIf, on the one hand, you deny that "all means all" in this verse, then that invalidates the Arminian principle, which clears the way for a Reformed interpretation of this verse and other Arminian prooftexts for unlimited atonement.
If, on the other hand, you stick to the Arminian principle, then you must suffer the consequences which Manata has drawn attention to.
Manata doesn't have a problem with people challenging his Arminian interpretation (for the sake of argument) of this particular verse. Indeed, he's baiting them to challenge that interpretation. That's the point of the exercise. It's meant to be provocative. To use the consequences of the Arminian interpretation as a pressure tactic to force an Arminian (or the functional equivalent thereof) to relinquish the "all means all" argument for unlimited atonment.
Whichever horn of the dilemma you seize, you will be impaled by it.
Let us not forget that the real Antichrist will, when he comes on to the world scene will be very popular. He will be very charismatic. So the point is when we look for the “Antichrist” we shouldn’t be looking for a villain. We shouldn’t be looking for a bad guy, for that is not how he is going to appear, not to most people, at least not at first.
ReplyDeleteIn fact he is going to appear as a savior. He is actually going to be responsible or seem to be responsible in solving some of humanity’s most intractable problems. Perhaps he is going to be responsible for curing some disease, or develop ways to make things grow on barren land.
This is why I am guessing that he will be an industrialist because only an industrialist could have the infrastructures to develop such technology. Obviously what pushes this guy into the world stage would be the continuing success of his company.
And from there his success and charisma is going to pull him into politics. I say pull but it was his plan all along, though like the best of politicians he will make it look like he only begrudgingly entered the political sphere.
I believe he will become the head of the European Union, an entity that right noW isn’t that strong, but since I see see this as happening from 30-50 years from now I see that by then the organization will have grown in strength
I still believe we have a generation or two before he arises, but in the term of human history a generation or two isn’t that long from now.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't quite tell if you describing Rudy or Romney as the Antichrist.
Paul and Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the time and for answering my questions. It's my desire to conduct myself the least like EgoMak as possible. :-D
And Paul, you're right - I don't like the Pope! I don't like Hitler either. It's fair to say I like him a lot less than the Pope. ;-)
One of Paul's major arguments at 1st was that Satan was a member of the "in authority" class. I didn't think that made any sense, so I'm glad to see Paul moving away from that, to what I think is a more important question, one that is harder for the non-5 pt Calvinist to answer.
1 Tim 2:1b - entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men
Questions:
1) What difference does it make, if any, that 3 of the 4 prayerful actions we're commanded to do have to do with asking God for a "tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity"?
2) More importantly, wouldn't we make thanksgivings for all men as far as they contribute to a tranquil and quiet life...? You seem to be saying that in a recent comment.
Note on #2 - you might come back and say But that just proves my point that the "all" is not "all" b/c you would then rule out any man who does NOT perform an action that is in accord with a tranquil and quiet life, etc.
You'd be right, but I don't see why that would rule out all meaning all here. The set is all men (according to this "Arminian assumption"), and some remove themselves by their actions, but
1) only later, AFTER we've offered entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings for them, and
2) I don't know if one could think of anyone in the history of the world who did not do one thing that would contribute to God-fearing people living a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. Maybe you can, though - I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
I'm still trying to think thru this, so I'll let any response help shape my thinking further.
One more thing with your indulgence:
v. 4 - "who desires all men to be saved..."
I assume you'd say that this does not result in God rejoicing in the death of the wicked.
Have you written anythg, or maybe know of a link or a cut-and-paste, that would explain that?
Again, respectfully,
Rhology
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteI didn't move away from Satan. In fact, I think I left it that you haven't proven that he's excluded. If I wrote:
Spay and neuter all dogs, your horses you aren't studding out, and all of those pets in your house.
You wouldn't think "cats" should be excluded, right?
Second, the verse says "ALL of those in authority."
So, if X ruthless dictator is someone you don't want to thank God for, he is still "in authority."
Hence:
1) All in authority God should be thanked for.
2) X ruthless dictator is in authority.
3) X ruthless dictator God should be thanked for.
There's another set here... all those in authority.
As far as your comments about leaders not doing one thing so God-fearing people living a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
We just had the national day of prayer for the persecuted church yesterday. In many places, like China for a time, Christians had to meet in secret. On a discussion board I belonged to we had a Middle Eastern country find a Christian who lived ther. he's not participating on the board anymore and got into some trouble.
Also, look up the VOM online as well as "persecuted church." You'll find many stories about governemnt officials beating, even killing, Christians who are caught in underground house churches, proclaiming their faith openly, or carrying Bibles.
So, I think that the exceptions are *inherent* in the texts.
Indeed, we can press further
Included in "All men" are Jeff Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, Charles Manson, various child molesters, etc. Do we "thank God" for them as well?
"Dear God, thank you for Jeffery Dahmer."
"Dear God, thank you for David Westerfield."
"Dear God, thank you for Vlad the Impaler."
"Dear God, thank you for Chuck Manson."
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI don't expect you to know this, but yes I am very familiar with the Persecuted Church, have had friends in danger from govt'al authorities while on the mission field, have been a missionary for a year just recently, am preparing to apply to go on the field in a high-security country. Just FYI. :-)
Re: Satan, the discussion showed to my satisfaction at least that these for whom we entreat, pray, etc are HUMANS and HUMAN authorities.
Either way, I think the 2nd of your points is much stronger.
You said:
if X ruthless dictator is someone you don't want to thank God for
But I just asked a question that would defeat that if not rebutted. It was:
Note on #2 - you might come back and say But that just proves my point that the "all" is not "all" b/c you would then rule out any man who does NOT perform an action that is in accord with a tranquil and quiet life, etc.
You'd be right, but I don't see why that would rule out all meaning all here. The set is all men (according to this "Arminian assumption"), and some remove themselves by their actions, but
1) only later, AFTER we've offered entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings for them, and
2) I don't know if one could think of anyone in the history of the world who did not do one thing that would contribute to God-fearing people living a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
I know what you're trying to say, b/c all those guys are clearly terrible and horrible. But I wonder if what I said above doesn't negate their horribleness for the purposes of this discussion.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
First of all, thank you Anonymous for responding to my request about Calvin’s words on the passage from his commentary. I wanted everyone to see these words, especially those who are not Calvinists, so that they can see that he got the first part right. Where he goes off track of course is when he tries to argue that God’s desire for all to be saved refers not to all men but to all kinds or types of men.
ReplyDeleteSecond, in seeing the other responses I am wondering why Pike and Manata had to engage in personal attacks of Anonymous (was it necessary to mock him or her as Anonywuss/Anonymouse?). I have noted on other occasions if the comments made by Anonymous persons were supportive of Calvinism, they were not verbally mocked.
Third, Manata wrote: Ex-Calvinist - and he's not, he's lying - simply asserts that the "all" used to quantify the class of "those in authority" simply means humans.
What am I lying about Manata? That I used to hold to Calvinism but have since rejected it? Or that I am lying about the all referring to humans? Either way, you are completely out of place to engage in this kind of accusation and slander against another Christian that you do not even know.
Fourth, some observations about what Calvin says [interspersed in brackets]:
1. I exhort therefore. These exercises of godliness maintain and even strengthen us in the sincere worship and fear of God, and cherish the good conscience of which he had spoken. Not inappropriately does he make use of the word therefore, to denote an inference; for those exhortations depend on the preceding commandment.
That, above all, prayers be made. First, he speaks of public prayers, [this is an important observation, that Paul is talking about public prayers of a congregation that would be for all men, including both believers, e.g. being thankful for someone’s generosity or ministry, and unbelievers, praying for opportunities to evangelize] which he enjoins to be offered, not only for believers, but for all mankind. [Calvin cannot be any more clear here: the prayer is for all mankind according to Calvin and he is correct on this] Some might reason thus with themselves: "Why should we be anxious about the salvation of unbelievers, with whom we have no connection? Is it not enough, if we, who are brethren, pray mutually for our brethren, and recommend to God the whole of his Church? for we have nothing to do with strangers." This perverse view Paul meets,[notice that the kind of speculation that Manata is engaging in is called by Calvin, perverse] and enjoins the Ephesians to include in their prayers all men, and not to limit them to the body of the Church.[sometimes we can see the maturity of some Christians as they limit their prayers only to themselves, when they ought to be praying for Christians throughout the world]
What is the difference between three out of the four kinds which Paul enumerates, I own that I do not thoroughly understand. The view given by Augustine, who twists Paul's words so as to denote ceremonial observances customary at that time, is quite childish. A simpler exposition is given by those who think that "requests" are when we ask to be delivered from what is evil; "prayers," when we desire to obtain something profitable; and "supplications," when we deplore before God injuries which we have endured. Yet for my own part, I do not draw the difference so ingeniously; or, at least, I prefer another way of distinguishing them.
Proseucai< is the Greek word for every kind of prayer; and deh>seiv denotes those forms of petitions in which something definite is asked. In this way the two words agree with each other, as genus and species. jEnteu>xeiv is the word commonly used by Paul to signify those prayers which we offer for one another. The word used for it in the Latin Translation is "intercessiones," intercessions. Yet Plato, in his second dialogue, styled Alcibiades, uses it in a different sense, to moan a definite petition offered by a person for himself; and in the very inscription of the book, and in many passages, he shows plainly, as I have said, that proseuch< is a general term. 1 [Calvin makes another valid point: not to get hung up on the different types of prayer referred to, Manata intentionally takes the reference to thanksgiving and then argues about whether not we should be thankful for people like Hitler, if Paul was talking about prayer for all men, then the thanksgivings could be for other Christians or for what God is doing with nonchristians, it need not be some command to be thankful for the sinful actions of human leaders as Manata is arguing]
But not to dwell longer than is proper on a matter that is not essential, Paul, in my own opinion, simply enjoins that, whenever public prayers are offered, petitions and supplications should be made for all men
[again Calvin cannot be any more clear, and again he is correct the text explicitly and clearly and plainly says to pray for all men], even for those who at present are not at all related to us. And yet this heaping up of words is not superfluous; but Paul appears to me purposely to join together three terms for the same purpose, in order to recommend more warmly, and urge more strongly, earnest and constant prayer. We know now sluggish we are in this religious duty; and therefore we need not wonder if, for the purpose of arousing us to it, the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, employs various excitements.
And thanksgivings. As to this term, there is no obscurity security; for, as he bids us make supplication to God for the salvation of unbelievers, so also to give thanks on account of their prosperity and success.[now Calvin is taking the term thanksgivings and directly applying it to nonbelievers in a legitimate way] That wonderful goodness which he shews every day, when
"he maketh his sun to rise on the good and the bad,"(Matthew 5:45,)
is worthy of being praised; and our love of our neighbor ought also to extend to those who are unworthy of it.
2. For kings. He expressly mentions kings and other magistrates because, more than all others, they might be hated by Christians.[again Calvin got it right here: even if these kings and other magistrates are evil and some Christians may be tempted to even hate them, nevertheless they are to be prayed for; and praying for can include their salvation and that they would do things in a just manner, praying for them need not be to be thankful to God for their sinful actions] All the magistrates who existed at that time were so many sworn enemies of Christ; and therefore this thought might occur to them, that they ought not to pray for those who devoted all their power and all their wealth to fight against the kingdom of Christ, the extension of which is above all things desirable. The apostle meets this difficulty, and expressly enjoins Christians to pray for them also.[Calvin’s simple and direct statement here contradicts much of what Manata wrote when arguing not to pray for evil human persons] And, indeed, the depravity of men is not a reason why God's ordinance should not be loved. Accordingly, seeing that God appointed magistrates and princes for the preservation of mankind,[clearly Calvin takes the phrase “kings and all who are in authority” to refer exclusively to human persons not angels, again negating much of Manata’s speculation and argument] however much they fall short of the divine appointment, still we must not on that account cease to love what belongs to God, and to desire that it may remain in force. That is the reason why believers, in whatever country they live, must not only obey the laws and the government of magistrates, but likewise in their prayers supplicate God for their salvation.[again Calvin got this part completely right] Jeremiah said to the Israelites,
"Pray for the peace of Babylon, for in their peace ye shall have peace." (Jeremiah 29:7.)
The universal doctrine is this, that we should desire the continuance and peaceful condition of those governments, which have been appointed by God. [this is an important citation by Calvin as he cites a time when Israel was under an evil empire, Babylon, and yet they were to pray for it and its evil rulers in order to have peace, what the apostle Paul describes as “so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity”; this indicates that Paul is not coming up with some new and strange doctrine or practice but is commending something the Jewish people had done themselves in their history which included lots of evil human rulers and empires]
That we may lead a peaceful and quiet life. By exhibiting the advantage, he holds out an additional inducement, for he enumerates the fruits which are yielded to us by a well regulated government. [is it wrong for Christians to pray for orderly and regulated governments? To pray that nonbelieving rulers do the right thing or engage in practices that will result in peace? There are in fact lots of legitimate ways to pray for nonbelieving government officials without thanking God for their sinful actions] The first is a peaceful life; for magistrates are armed with the sword, in order to keep us in peace. If they did not restrain the hardihood of wicked men, every place would be full of robberies and murders. The true way of maintaining peace, therefore, is, when every one obtains what is his own, and the violence of the more powerful is kept under restraint.
With all godliness and decency. The second fruit is the preservation of godliness, that is, when magistrates give themselves to promote religion, to maintain the worship of God, and to take care that sacred ordinances be observed with due reverence. The third fruit is the care of public decency; for it is also the business of magistrates to prevent men from abandoning themselves to brutal filthiness or flagitious conduct, but, on the contrary, to promote decency and moderation. If these three things are taken away, what will be the condition of human life? [Calvin speaks of these three things all of which any Christian whether Calvinist or not can pray for] If, therefore, we are at all moved by solicitude about the peace of society, or godliness, or decency, let us remember that we ought also to be solicitous about those through whose agency we obtain such distinguished benefits.
Hence we conclude, that fanatics, who wish to have magistrates taken away, are destitute of all humanity, and breathe nothing but cruel barbarism. [how would Calvin see Manata’s arguments on the passage?] How different is it to say, that we ought to pray for kings, in order that justice and decency may prevail, and to say, that not only the name of kingly power, but all government, is opposed to religion! We have the Spirit of God for the Author of the former sentiment, and therefore the latter must be from the Devil.[again Calvin is clear and correct]
If any one ask, Ought we to pray for kings, from whom we obtain none of these advantages? [now Calvin gets directly into Manata’s evil rulers discussion] I answer, the object of our prayer is, that, guided by the Spirit of God, they may begin to impart to us those benefits of which they formerly deprived us. It is our duty, therefore, not only to pray for those who are already worthy, but we must pray to God that he may make bad men good.[so we ought to pray that God would make bad men good] We must always hold by this principle, that magistrates were appointed by God for the protection of religion, as well as of the peace and decency of society,[government even evil government has a purpose in God’s plan] in exactly the same manner that the earth is appointed to produce food. 2 Accordingly, in like manner as, when we pray to God for our daily bread, we ask him to make the earth fertile by his blessing; so in those benefits of which we have already spoken, we ought to consider the ordinary means which he has appointed by his providence for bestowing them.[Calvin says that the government officials we find ourselves with are part of God’s providence, so then why not pray for them, whether they be good or evil?]
To this must be added, that, if we are deprived of those benefits the communication of which Paul assigns to magistrates, that is through our own fault. It is the wrath of God that renders magistrates useless to us, in the same manner that it renders the earth barren; and, therefore, we ought to pray for the removal of those chastisements which have been brought upon us by our sins.
On the other hand, princes, and all who hold the office of magistracy, are here reminded of their duty. It is not enough, if, by giving to every one what is due, they restrain all acts of violence, and maintain peace; but they must likewise endeavor to promote religion, and to regulate morals by wholesome discipline. The exhortation of David (Psalm 2:12) to "kiss the Son," and the prophecy of Isaiah, that they shall be nursing -- fathers of the Church, (Isaiah 49:23,) are not without meaning; and, therefore, they have no right to fatter themselves, if they neglect to lend their assistance to maintain the worship of God.
Fifth, Manata make much about the phrase “and all who are in authority.” Couple problems with his speculations and arguments involving this phrase. First, he leaves out the words that complete the phrase. Properly construed the phrase is “for kings and all who are in authority.” Paul begins with a command to pray on behalf of all men, verse 1. Then the apostle narrows it down a bit to “for kings and all who are in authority.” This is a subset of the larger set of all men. And this subset does not refer to angels. Manata could check out any commentary he chooses and he will find no one arguing that “and all who are in authority” may have reference to Satan or angels. Manata spent some time arguing this possibility. Which brings me to my second point about this phrase. I checked my handy little red book (i.e., Rienecker’s LINGUISTIC KEY TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, an invaluable tool to doing exegesis of New Testament texts). Check out what Rienecker says about this phrase, specifically what he says about what the Greek word meant: “huperoche [transliteration of the Greek word] prominence, a place of prominence or authority, used of prominent officials. The word was used in Hellenistic Gr. To indicate the prominent position of a person (BAG, MM; Dibelius).” The word present is not the Greek word for authority at all, it speaks directly to human government officials in high places in a human government. So this means most of Manata’s arguments about Satan and authority were a complete waste of time. Caused by ignoring the Greek text and arguing from the English translation. Oops!
Sixth, one more comment about this passage. Pike in attempting to correct Anonymous wrote: “Anonywuss said:
---
Calvin makes God only to want all types of men to be saved, not all individual men...
---
Actually God said that.”
Pike is completely wrong on this. God did not say that he only wanted to save “all types of men.” Calvinists regularly inject words that are not present in the Greek text in order to defend and maintain their position on the passages that contradict their views (such as this one).
The apostle Paul is quite capable of writing “kinds” when he wants to do so (e.g. in 1 Cor. 14:10 he writes “gene phonon estin en kosmo”/kinds of sounds in the world). Paul does not write kinds or types in connection with ALL in either 1 Tim. 2:1 or 1 Tim. 2:4. This by the way is one of the reasons that I reject Calvinism. I used to argue that the phrases ought to be interpreted as “all kinds of . . .” or “all types of . . .” But in fact if Paul had wanted to write that he could (and would) have done so. He could have written “pantas/on gene anthropous/on”, all kinds of men, but he did not do so. He wrote simply, in both v. 1 and v. 4 “panta/on anthropous/on (all men).
What this whole discussion further confirms to me is that Calvinism is false and leads to desperate attempts to evade the plain meaning of the biblical texts. Manata engaged in a lot of arguing that was completely a waste of time, had he examined the Greek texts he would not have made many of his comments.
In v. 1 Paul says that we are to “pray on behalf of all men” (here he refers to humanity as a whole). Then in v. 2 he narrows down his focus for a moment to refer directly to praying for a subset of humanity, human officials in human governments, as some of the people that Christians ought to pray for. Then in v. 4 he again speaks of humanity as a whole, “who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” The verses are almost too simple, but driven by their theology the Calvinists have to argue against God’s word (with the kind of vacuous arguments displayed by Manata in this thread) so that they can keep their desired belief that God only wants to save the elect.
Oh, and one more thing. Rhology I knew Richard Wurmbrand before he died. And he shared stories with me about how the persecuted Christians lived out 1 Tim. 2:1-4 by praying for government officials in evil governments and by loving these people with the love of Christ, and some of them got saved. I have also heard this same thing from other persecuted Christians that I know. At this point I will take Wurmbrand’s (and the others) word on this much more than that of Manata who only sits before his computer and argues for Calvinism. The actions of the others are the truth, the words and arguments of Manata are the mere philosophical wranglings and speculations of a Calvinist trying to persuade us to adopt a mistaken interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:1-4.
Ex-Calvinist
ex-Calvinist,
ReplyDeleteI already offered agruments you didn't deal with.
Let's take Calvin the way you want to. Let's say you agree with his position. If Calvin's claims that we should thank (note, I never denied that we shouldn't *pray* for them, so almosty all your comments are irrelevant) even evil magistrates is applicable to *all* magistratres *whoever* then what of Calvin's claim that we are:
"to desire that it may remain in force."
Thus if your interpretation of Calvin is correct, and if it is your position too, then you must pray and desire that regimes such as Hitler's Germany REMAIN IN FORCE.
I take this to be a crippling objection and for all your cutting and pasting you failed to get around it.
Or, Calvin says,
"so also to give thanks on account of their prosperity and success."
if their success and prosperity is due to stealing your money, then you shoudl thank God for this!
I see no way out of my defeater for you.
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteI've now upped the stakes. You need to thank God for Dahmer &c.
You said,
"The set is all men (according to this "Arminian assumption"), and some remove themselves by their actions, but
1) only later, AFTER we've offered entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings for them, and
2) I don't know if one could think of anyone in the history of the world who did not do one thing that would contribute to God-fearing people living a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."
(1) Where do you find this *in the text.*
(1.1) If you take Paul to be saying, "Pray for all X's except these X's," then all doesn't mean all *regardless of the timing.* I think your "rebutter" is anachronistic. "Al men who exhibit character trait X" is not the same set as "all men whoever."
(2) I think I pointed out some.
Ex-Calvinist said,
ReplyDelete"At this point I will take Wurmbrand’s (and the others) word on this much more than that of Manata who only sits before his computer and argues for Calvinism."
Uh, I never denied that the governments couldn't be changed, and I never said we shouldn't *pray* for them. I'd try to represent people correctly before insulting them.
More importantly, let's look at soemthing else you said,
"Either way, you are completely out of place to engage in this kind of accusation and slander against another Christian that you do not even know."
Seeing that you don't know much about me and my life, how do you escape the charge of hypocrisy?
Your ignoring of the strongest arguments against your claims, misstating what I'm objecting to, and your hypocritical actions serve to undermine your "pious" critiques against Calvinism.
I'd spend my time trying to substantively address me rather than posting a lot of material so as to burry your opponent if I were you.
EC said,
ReplyDelete"In v. 1 Paul says that we are to “pray on behalf of all men” (here he refers to humanity as a whole)."
He also says to thank God for.
So, make sure to thank God for Dahmer, Bundy, Ramirez, Manson, BTK, Zodiac, Gein, et al.
So before you eat dinner tonight make sure you say,
"Dear God, thank you for Jeffery Dahmer."
I'd add that we can see a biblical example of my position applied right here:
ReplyDeleteRomans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Note the use of what's been referred to as "the Arminian assumption." Note the similarity with 1 Timothy 2.
Now look at:
Acts 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, 28 saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us." 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
The Arminian Assumption would make it against God's word for *any* type of resistance to the government - or something similar - but we know that this is false, that is, there are *some* people who may resist the authorities. For example, if America commanded us to throw away our Bibles we would be justified in disobeying that order, in resisting. But, the text says WHOEVER resist is worthy of God's judgment. Is says that EVERY PERSON should be subject to the authorites? Oh really? Those people who have been commanded to deny the faith? To commit adultary? etc?
Every argument applied against my take on 1 Tim. 2 could be applied to what I just said above.
"Yes, we should submit to all of them, and every command, because it is for our good. Because they are God's servants. etc."
I thus take it as reasonable that Paul had the same ideas in mind when he wrote 1 Timothy. Just as Paul didn't include the Apostles in the "WHOEVER" or "EVERY PERSON" of Romans 13, he likewise doesn't include Hutu authorities, genocidal maniacal authorites such as Hitler's Gernamy, and the like in 1 Timothy 2.
I thus take it that the Arminian Assumption has absurd, forced, impractical, and unbiblical consequences that follow from that assumption.
Ex-Calvinist,
ReplyDeleteWow, you knew Pastor Wurmbrand?! Cool, his story was instrumental in my growth in the faith in high school. I have a great love for him though I know little about him besides his Tortured for Christ and VOM publications.
And yeah, what you said about him resonates, it's what I've been thinking as well. But your childish jab at "sitting behind a computer..." is out of line. That doesn't matter either way.
I'll note a few things that are interesting here.
-The apostle Paul is quite capable of writing “kinds” when he wants to do so
This is an argument that we SS-ists often use to refute the notion that Mary never had any other children.
Roman Cathos say "Adelphos doesn't *necessarily* mean 'brother'; it can mean 'kinsman'." We respond that there are a couple of Gk terms for "kinsman" that the Holy Spirit DIDN'T use.
Not the only argument against Mary's Perpetual Virginity, but it's one of them, here used in a different way.
-In v. 1 Paul says that we are to “pray on behalf of all men” (here he refers to humanity as a whole). Then in v. 2 he narrows down his focus for a moment to refer directly to praying for a subset of humanity, human officials in human governments, as some of the people that Christians ought to pray for. Then in v. 4 he again speaks of humanity as a whole, “who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” The verses are almost too simple...the elect.
To me this seems a strong point, and it seems that Paul Manata walked into a problem when he brings up Romans 13.
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Paul, again with respect (and please note that I believe Ex-Calvinist is out of line in his tone of "voice" with you. Maybe he doesn't appreciate your apologetic and polemical endeavors here at the T-blog like I do), ISTM that we have less to do with the "Arminian assumption" here than with the way that the Apostle Paul seems to be playing on the implied-but-obvious exceptions.
Rom 13 - "whoever resists," etc, but it would be patently obvious to any reader that to resist Imperial Rome, refusing to say "Kaiser kurios", would be commendable. Indeed, the opposite would be condemned. Rather, whoever resists the gov'tal authorities insofar as they do not command you to break God's law, will incur judgment. Right?
Go to 1 Tim 2 now - why wouldn't we say that the entreaties, prayers, etc, would be made on behalf of all men, insofar as they contribute to our living a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity? It would be the exact same idea as in Rom 13, wouldn't it?
-Paul said:
So before you eat dinner tonight make sure you say, "Dear God, thank you for Jeffery Dahmer."
Why not thank God that He furthered His will thru Dahmer's existence, that Dahmer will either be saved (if he was converted before death, which is widely reported), thus showing God's GREAT mercy, or will be condemned, thus showing the glory of God's justice, that no unrepentant evildoer will escape judgment?
I'd call that the barebones minimum thanksgiving, and that's already pretty good. Why wouldn't that be valid?
Calvin himself says it in the comments on v.2 - And, indeed, the depravity of men is not a reason why God's ordinance should not be loved.
That's what I'm saying.
-(2) I think I pointed out some.
I don't think one could make the argument that the guys you said never did ONE SINGLE thing that would contribute to God-fearing people living a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. Hitler treated his pet dog well. That is a TINY pittance, but it's ONE THING.
Respectfully,
Rhology
"ISTM that we have less to do with the "Arminian assumption" here than with the way that the Apostle Paul seems to be playing on the implied-but-obvious exceptions."
ReplyDeleteExceptions? If Paul is not referring to X's who Y, then when he mentions every or all X he's excluding X's who Y. Thus the entire class isn't mentioned.
"Go to 1 Tim 2 now - why wouldn't we say that the entreaties, prayers, etc, would be made on behalf of all men, insofar as they contribute to our living a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity? It would be the exact same idea as in Rom 13, wouldn't it?"
Right, you're catching on. "Men who allow you to live X kind of life" are a *class* of "all men whoever."
"Why not thank God that He furthered His will thru Dahmer's existence, that Dahmer will either be saved (if he was converted before death, which is widely reported), thus showing God's GREAT mercy, or will be condemned, thus showing the glory of God's justice, that no unrepentant evildoer will escape judgment? "
Here's where you keep contradicting yourself. If we can indeed thank God for Dahmer, Hitler's Germany, et al., then why the waffeling above? Why not just bite the bullet and say it means all men, no exceptions?
Second, you're not thanking God FOR DAHMER. Thanking God for CONSEQUENCES GOD BROUGHT OUT *BY* DAHMER isn't the same as thanking God for Dahmer qua Dahmer.
Thirdly, why don't you obey the verse. Paul is commanding you to pray for ALL men whoever. Do you do so? I bet you couldn't even get through the A's.
"Calvin himself says it in the comments on v.2 - And, indeed, the depravity of men is not a reason why God's ordinance should not be loved.
That's what I'm saying."
God's *ordinances* isn't *the person.*
"I don't think one could make the argument that the guys you said never did ONE SINGLE thing that would contribute to God-fearing people living a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. Hitler treated his pet dog well. That is a TINY pittance, but it's ONE THING. "
How does treating his dog well contribute to God-fearing people living a tranquel and quet life in all godliness and dignity, especially when he's actively hunting them down? People in those persecuted countries stories don't sound to me like they are living quient and peacful lives, with dignity.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear that there are exceptions to the "all men" just like I believer there are with the "all men" Jesus died for. If you're not going to bite the bullet then your position seems arbitrary. I think your "exception" in 1 Timothy 2 is ad hoc, and you even end up arguin for why they could be included, no exceptions. But, just like Paul wrote Romans and used EVERY PERSON (all men) and WHOEVER while knowing that he didn't mean every person and whoever, he likewise didn't mean all men whoever and all authorities whoever in 1 Tim. 2.
Lastly, no one has addressed my claim that Calvin didn't mean all authoroties whatever. He said we should pray that they "remain in force." Thus we'd have Calvin saying that if he were living in Germany in the 30's and 40's he'd pray that Hitler's regime would stay in force. That he'd pray that Amin's regime would stay in force. That he'd pray that Stalin's regime would stay in force. Calvin would not pray that, therefore Calvin didn't mean all authorities whoever. That's a valid argument, which premise is denied?
Paul Manata continues to argue that since the text mentions prayers of thanks, as one form of prayer, that we should be thanking God for evil persons such as serial killers:
ReplyDelete“He also says to thank God for.
So, make sure to thank God for Dahmer, Bundy, Ramirez, Manson, BTK, Zodiac, Gein, et al.
So before you eat dinner tonight make sure you say,
"Dear God, thank you for Jeffery Dahmer."”
This argument ignores a principle of common sense and common Christian practice. The principle and practice is this: we do not pray the same things for every person that we pray for. Different people have different needs so we pray accordingly.
Does Manata pray the same things for his unsaved brother as he does for his pastor?
Yes the text of 1 Tim. 2 tells us to pray for all men. But it does not say that we are to pray the same things for every person. Most Christians have enough common sense and practice in prayer to know this simple principle. I pray different things for different people. And my prayers do not include thanking God for evil persons and sinful actions.
The apostle Paul writes in Eph. 5:7-12: Therefore do not be partakers with them; for your were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth, trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.
In light of this should we be thankful for evil persons and their evil actions? No. But can we pray certain things concerning them: such as that they be saved or that they do the righteous thing with regard to a decision that they are making? Yes. For example, when Bill Clinton was present, Christians prayed that he would do the right things during his presidency. We were not thanking God for his sinful actions but hopefully we were praying for the man to do the right thing when it came to major issues with which he was dealing.
So some things would be appropriate prayers even for people that we consider evil persons and some would not be.
A simple perusal of the text of 1 Tim. 2 shows that we are to pray on behalf of all men, so different prayers will be given for different men (including kings and other government officials) and at the same time God also desires for all men to be saved.
Ex-Calvinist
Ex-Calvinist wastes our time, again, by talking about prayers.
ReplyDeleteHe tries to smuggle thanking in the back door, but ca't seem to fit it in through that door. he says,
"In light of this should we be thankful for evil persons and their evil actions? No. But can we pray certain things concerning them: such as that they be saved or that they do the righteous thing with regard to a decision that they are making? Yes. For example, when Bill Clinton was present, Christians prayed that he would do the right things during his presidency. We were not thanking God for his sinful actions but hopefully we were praying for the man to do the right thing when it came to major issues with which he was dealing."
I never denied that we shouldn't pray for them. I denied we should thank God for them. I don't thank God that my friend's wife gets cancer, "Dear God, thank you for giving Stacy cancer..." but I do pray for her.
Ex-Calvinist simply boxes me into a certain positin, and then attacks that position. One wonders if he's ever heard of the phrase, "Straw Man," before.
Likewise, we've seen no interaction with Romans 13. Paul says EVETY PERSON which is identical to ALL MEN, yet he doesn't mean all men. Likewise, Paul doesn't mean all authoroties either. Some may be prayed for, but we don't thank God for them. We don't thank God for giving us Hitler as our leader, for giving us Hutu authorities above us, etc.
So, unless Ex-Calvinist is going to move the convo forward, resit the urge to re-assert conclusions, resist the urge to beat down straw men, then he should just forget about posting here anymore. I'm sure both of our time could be better spent. For me, I wouldn't have to correct straw men. For you, you wouldn't have to re-assert what you've already said. You wouldn't have to to try to beat an inferior position. So, save us both the time....
again, notice that he said we shopuldn't be thankful for evil persons, but
ReplyDelete(1) This isn't always the case
and
(2) This shows all doesn't mean all.
So
(3) Why not just keep the same idea in mind when you guys read about Jesus' death for "all men?"
There are "obvious exceptions" when Pauls says to thank God for all men and authorities, when he says every single person is to not resist the governing authorities, and(!) when he says Jesu died for all men. Obvious exceptions. Like, well, if you're a reprobate.
I think that I have finally figured out why Manata continues to engage in bizarre arguments attempting to evade the plain and clear meaning of the text of 1 Timothy 2:1-6.
ReplyDeleteNotice his comment in his last post:
“again, notice that he said we shopuldn't be thankful for evil persons, but
(1) This isn't always the case
and
(2) This shows all doesn't mean all.
So
(3) Why not just keep the same idea in mind when you guys read about Jesus' death for "all men?"”
Manata’s goal is to eliminate 1 Tim. 2 as a text contradicting his cherished Calvinism. If the text of 1 Tim. 2 (which says that God desires for all men to be saved) is true, then his Calvinism (and belief that God does not desire for all men to be saved, but instead desires only for the predetermined elect to be saved), is false.
So he has to evade the plain and clear meaning of 1 Tim. 2 in order to hold to his system.
So he is obsessed with finding a strategy to get past the “Arminian” (actually the correct) interpretation of 1 Tim. 2. Ideally, he would like to prove that the phrase “all men” in the text does not really mean “all men” but really means “all kinds/types of men”. If he can show that, then the text no longer directly contradicts his Calvinist beliefs.
As I noted in a previous post, though the apostle Paul could have written kinds in front of or in connection with “men” he did not do so (he simply wrote “all men”).
Manata calls it the “Arminian principle” that “all men really means all men”. So how can he attack this notion?
The strategy he has adopted is to argue that the Arminian does not really believe that “all men means all men”, in this passage but that the Arminian recognizes exceptions so the Arminian does not believe that “all men” means all men. Manata’s argument is that the “Arminian principle” applied to the text of 1 Tim. 2 leads to absurd results (it is a reductio argument seeking to establish the conclusion that since supposedly the consequences of the Arminian principle leads to absurd results in the passage therefore the Arminian principle must be false).
Consider the meanings of three statements:
(1) pray FOR ALL MEN;
(2) don’t pray FOR ALL MEN; and
(3) don’t pray [the same things] FOR ALL MEN.
(1) and (2) are contradictories, they both can’t be true at the same time, they are inconsistent with each other. (3) However, is not a contradiction of (1) nor are (3) and (1) inconsistent. How so? I can recognize that the text of 1 Tim. 2 says that I ought to pray for all men (that is statement 1 above). And at the same time, I can believe that while I am to pray for all men, I am not commanded to pray exactly the same things for all men (statement 3 above). I made this point in my previous post.
The text of 1 Tim. 2:1 says that “First of all, then, I urge that ENTREATIES, PRAYERS, PETITIONS, THANKGIVINGS, be made on behalf of ALL MEN.” I believe that Paul is talking about the public prayer of a local church congregation. I also believe that these words that I highlighted by capitalizing refer to different forms of prayer. So giving thanks is a form of prayer, as is petitioning God about something.
The command then in verse 1 is to pray for all men. But is this command disobeyed if we pray different things for different men that make up the set of all men? No.
This seems to be what Manata in his obsession to argue against the proper interpretation of 1 Tim. 2 is missing. Manata thinks that if we admit that we do not pray in the exact same way for all people (e.g. we do not give thanks to God for serial killers), then we are affirming statement 2 above (don’t pray FOR ALL MEN). But affirming statement 3 is not the same as affirming statement 2.
Carefully consider the meaning of the phrase “pray for all men”. Does it mean:
(A) pray exactly the same things for each and every single person; or can it mean
(B) pray for all men but pray differently for different people?
Manata is putting all of his eggs in basket (A). So if the text of 1 Tim. 2:1 mentions to give thanks, he then runs with that to claim that if we hold to the “Arminian principle” we should then be giving thanks for Hitler, serial killers, and other evil persons. But that claim that we should give thanks for all men including serial killers is only true if praying for all men entails that we pray in exactly the same ways for all men (i.e. A). But Manata does not accept (A) nor do people who are not Calvinists like myself.
And here is the crucial error that Manata is making: the denial of (A) [pray exactly the same things for each and every single person] is not the denial of “pray for all men”. How so? Manata seems to not understand that one can deny (A) [pray exactly the same things for each and every single person] while at the same time affirming (1) pray FOR ALL MEN. Manata seems to think that if you deny (A) then you must also deny (1).
What Manata seems to leave out is that: one can deny (A) but affirm (B) [pray for all people but pray differently for different people]. If I affirm (B) I can pray certain things about nonbelievers or evil people like Hitler or serial killers (e.g. pray for their salvation), while at the same time not praying in other ways for them (so I do not give thanks for evil persons like Hitler or serial killers). Now just because I pray different things for different people does that mean that I am not obeying the command to pray for all people? No. So I can affirm that I am to pray for all people (1) above, and pray for different people in different ways (B) above, and continue to maintain that “all men” in v. 1 really does mean “all men”.
So contrary to Manata’s attempts at a reductio on the “Arminian principle”, his efforts have failed.
And since it means “all men” in v.1 it can also mean “all men” in v.4. I am not even an Arminian and yet I can hold to what Manata calls the “Arminian principle” in v. 1 and v. 4 without any difficulty. Manata’s arguments and efforts to evade the correct interpretation of 1 Tim. 2 are a complete failure. And I am given yet again, even more reason to believe that Calvinism is false. The repeated and unsuccessful Calvinist attempts to evade the plain and clear meaning of biblical texts (such as 1 Timothy 2) demonstrates the falsity of their system.
Ex-Calvinist
I don't have anythg intelligent to add, so I've shut up, but I want to tell Paul M and Ex-C that the conversation is very, very interesting to me from both sides.
ReplyDeleteAs your time to respond to each other allows, know that I am reading faithfully. Many thanks to both of you.