“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, (2) for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (3) This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, (4) who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (7) For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. ” - 1Tim 2:1-7
Preface
I need to say a few words about how Arminians approach this text before I provide an exegesis. Next to 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4 is by far the most cited verse that Arminians use against Calvinists. The intention behind quoting, “who desires all people to be saved,” is to throw water on any idea that God has elected individuals to be saved, and to deny a particular intention in the atonement, as well as deny any notion that God has a special salvific love for his children.
Arminians start with the human-centered assumption that if God does not love all people undifferentiated, then he would be unjust to love some more than others. The Calvinist begins with the Biblical principle that because man is unworthy of grace and deserving only of death, God in his holiness, wisdom, and freedom chooses to love and elect any creature he desires. I often ask Arminians whether God is just to destroy all the people in the world. The answer is usually “yes.” Then I ask, if so, can God be merciful and choose to elect some to be saved? Here is where they balk.
Why do they commit this inconsistency? Arminians believe that “grace” is only grace if it’s given to all people. Yes, I know what you are thinking, “But that defeats the very meaning of grace.” Exactly, grace is undeserved. If God in his freedom chooses to give one person electing grace, he is not required to give someone else this same grace. “But that’s not fair!” someone may object. That’s right, it’s not fair—it’s called grace. We don’t want God to be fair. We want him to be merciful. If God were fair with us, we would all get our just due: to perish eternally in our sins.
Two Wills of God? (Piper)
I also need to note how some Reformed theologians have attempted to reconcile this verse. One thinker, John Piper, whom I respect, has made an appeal to a theological principle that God has two basic wills: “what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen.” [The Pleasure of God, Revised and Expanded, Appendix: “Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved” p. 317].
This concept of “two wills” is nothing new of course in Reformed thinking, which Piper notes. And I do agree that it is essential to distinguish between different aspects of God’s will in his decrees, laws, character, etc. But there are important disagreements in how God’s will is understood in particular texts. It is paramount that we first allow the immediate context to have priority before we choose to interact with the theological principle of God’s “two wills.”
Concerning 1 Timothy 2:4, Piper says,
It is possible that careful exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that God’s willing “all men to be saved” does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather to all sorts of persons, since the “all men” in verse 1 may well mean groups like “kings and all who are in authority” (v. 2). [p. 314, emphasis his. He notes John Gill affirming this interpretation.]This is my understanding of the text as well, and the exegesis in which I will defend below. However, he continues by saying something uncharacteristic,
Nevertheless, the case for this limitation on God’s universal saving will has never been convincing to Arminians and likely will not become convincing, especially since Ezekiel 18:23, 18:32, and 33:11 are even less tolerant of restriction. Therefore, as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election, I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent and that he has compassion on all people. My aim is to show that this is not double talk [p. 315].A couple of comments are necessary. The impression that I am given is that though Piper has first admitted that for him 1 Timothy 2:4 has the possible meaning that God desires “all sorts of persons” and not every individual in the world to be saved, he says that this exegetical argument will not be “convincing to Arminians,” therefore he feels the need to appeal to another argument (i.e. “two wills”).
He then says, “Nevertheless, I will try to make a credible case that while the Arminian pillar texts [1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 18:23] may indeed be pillars for universal love, they are not weapons against unconditional election” (p. 315). But I have to disagree that these particular texts teach God’s universal love. Often it is Arminians who lump these three verses together to mean this; yet, each of these verses are addressing different subjects. 1 Timothy 2:4 concerns God’s desire that those in authority are not excluded from his saving grace; 2 Peter 3:9 notes that God is not willing that his people perish; Ezekiel 18:23 informs us that God is not diabolical in that he takes pleasure in the death of the wicked in itself. None of these three texts are intended to teach a universal love or desire to save every single individual.
I agree with Piper that in many Biblical instances, “what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen,” but this conclusion should be justified by the priority of the context in question. And in the 1 Timothy 2:4 passage there is no basis to apply such a principle because the context and exegesis is sufficient to learn Paul’s meaning. Further, whether or not an argument is convincing to an Arminian is irrelevant. God is glorified when his truth is upheld, regardless of anyone being convinced of the truth, which I am sure Piper would agree. If Arminians cannot accept the exegesis of Scripture, there is no reason to concede to their interpretation and then try to appeal to something outside of the text in the hopes that they will affirm our theology. It is also important to note that the refusal to agree with Calvinistic interpretation is not so much an intellectual issue, as it is a matter of the heart.
Exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4
The context has already been touched on above, but let me give it flesh. Arminians are fond of citing only part of verse 4, “who desires all people to be saved.” The default meaning for them is “every single individual on this planet.” I often hear them say, “all means all.” Well of course it does, but the question is “all of what?” This is where context must determine what “all” is referring to. So let us examine it by looking at the couple of verses that precede verse 4,
(1) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, (2) for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (3) This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, (4) who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.We could work backwards from verse 4 to 1, or forward from verse 1 to 4; either way, it is all connected. But let us work backwards to see the flow of Paul’s thinking. Notice verse 4 begins with “who”; the antecedent is obviously “God” in verse 3, which begins by saying that there is something good and pleasing to our God. What is “This” that Paul is referring to? Here we need to view verses 1 and 2 together as a unit. Paul is urging Timothy the importance of prayers and other spiritual disciplines to be made for all kinds of classes of people.
Paul gives the key statement by noting that the regal class of kings and the higher social class of those in authority should be included in prayer and other disciplines. Why does Paul urge this command? So we may, “lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” Is Paul simply urging them to pray that the authority ruling powers will be mollified? No! Paul has something more eternally hoped for than temporal appeasement from the oppression of rulers; he would like to see them be saved. Hence, Paul immediately follows up by saying, “ (3) This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, (4) who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Paul has in mind that God does not intend to save only one particular social class of people, but all social classes, including kings and those in authority. To read “all people” as “every single person in the world” is not warranted by the context and reveals a reading of one’s tradition and false notions into Paul’s important message to Timothy.
Arminians have wrongly interpreted this verse from a horizontal perspective. That is, they have read into this text the idea that all individuals in the world are in view. But Paul is giving us a vertical point of view of particular social classes. Therefore it is correct to say that Paul is speaking of all “kinds” or “sorts” of people, i.e., it is God’s desire that the social class of those in higher authority are not excluded from his saving grace.
In addition, if we are to grasp the full force of the meaning behind Paul’s statement “all people” in verse 4, it is necessary to briefly look at the historical context behind 1Timothy. Paul is writing Timothy who is in Ephesus and urging him to stay and fulfill teaching and ministerial duties (1 Tim. 1:2). Try to imagine yourself as a Jewish convert being commanded to pray for, not just kings and those in authority, but Gentile kings and those in authority. This command obviously affects Gentile and Jewish listeners differently, but for the latter it would have been much more shocking to be exhorted to pray for not just heathens, but heathen authorities! God wants “all people” to be saved, those of the social class of kings and those in authority, which included Gentile authorities.
Another point that requires attention are the couple of verses that follow verse 4. It reads, “(5) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.”
In verse 5, Paul uses the important connecting word “For” to give us the causal reason for what came before it. Paul is introducing sacrificial language in which he ties together the mediation of Christ with his atonement. And in verse 6, once again, we find the word “all” in which Christ gave himself as a ransom. It would be absurd to state that Christ gave himself as a ransom for every single person on this planet, for if he did, every individual would be saved, not to mention that God would have no basis to judge any man for his sins (Cf. Matt. 20:28).
Incidentally, it would be silly to read the following verses that contain the phrase “all people” or “all” with it meaning “every single individual on the planet” (Col. 3:11, Gal. 3:28, Mark 13:13, Acts 21:28, Acts 22:15). Others could be cited, but this sampling demonstrates clearly that it is an exegetical fallacy to use the default meaning “every single individual on the planet” when approaching these texts. Context is king.
Finally, it is key that we recognize that Paul in verse 7 connects his Gentile mission to the second use of “all” found in verse 6. This is often overlooked in many treatments of this text. Paul says in verse 7, “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” In the clearest of terms, Paul is affirming that God has included the Gentiles in his plan of salvation by Christ giving himself as a ransom for “all” not just for the Jews; hence, the reason he immediately follows by saying, “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle...of the Gentiles.” Given this context, we can begin to appreciate the ethnic dynamics of the Pauline gospel message.
In summary, Paul uses “all people” in verse 4 to refer to all social classes (in this case, inclusion of kings and those in authority); then in his second use of “all” in verse 6 he refers to all ethnic classes (in this case, inclusion of Gentiles). With these contextual and historical dimensions of the text, we can value why it is essential that we are careful not to import our 21st century modern American cultural assumptions back into a 2,000-year-old Jewish letter. It is imperative that we listen to the historical context, as well as the immediate context to learn its intended meaning, rather than force our preconceived ideas of what we think the text should mean.
My friends, I ask you. Have you prayed for your authorities today? Or do you keep your prayers limited to only your social group? Have you prayed for other ethnic groups, or only your own? Heed the command of the apostle Paul and pray for them, for he says that this is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior.
If you (1) read carefully the Acts of the Apostles (2) read carefully the book of Galatians. .. You will understand the magnitude of the controversy of teaching "Gentiles can come to Christ too".
ReplyDeleteLets say you are a Jewish Christian and you have been taught as everyone around you has been taught for hundreds of years that the Gentiles are godless dogs. Now here comes Christ and the Apostles dropping bombs like "all people will be saved" not just the Jewish people. How long is it going to take for you as a Jewish Christian to accept that teaching? That is why the New Testament is replete with the "all people" teaching. The leaders of the church first had to be convinced this was the case(see Galatians) and after that the masses had to accept it (See Acts). The controversy is so great and the debate went on for so long that almost every book in the NT has to re-enforce the idea. (See late Epistles like First john)
Then you get J.Arm coming around hundreds and hundreds of years later and he doesn't posses a proper context for those verses anymore.
It's all there guys. You just need to put those verses in their proper context.
Ummm...
ReplyDeleteAmish.
Are you talking to the author of the post?
Did you read the post?
...
I am echoing/agreeing with his post.
ReplyDeleteAll people vertically and all people horizontally are still the same mathematical set of all people.
ReplyDeleteWhat if I am predudiced against Chinese firemen from Shanghai, with clubbed feet, whose name is Wong, who have blonde curly hair and earn between 300 and 304 yuan per month. Surely I don't have to pray for them do I, because I surely don't like that kind of person.
Does Paul's argument extend to them, even if that set of people only has one member? Or may I remain in my predudice against that sector of society and not pray for them? If I can remain in my predudice, his whole argument collapses because everyone can be made an exception. If Paul's argument defeats me, then it extends to even those sets of people (whatever set we might devise) that includes only one person. And all the sets we might devise includes everyone.
Furthermore, Paul starts from the universal, before including the kings. Paul's first point is to pray for all men, and his clarification is that it even includes Kings.
In the context "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".... God mediates for men, not for kinds of men. If the "all men" means all kinds of men in v4, then logically it should be so in v5 also. But does Jesus go to the Father and say "I'm mediating for firemen, Kings and those in authority". If so, and if mediation equals salvation, then all Kings must be saved if one is, and all Firemen must be saved if one is. Since its already conceded that all types of men will be saved, that results in universalism.
So either all men really means all, or else Paul's argument is turned on its head.
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteIn what sense do you think that Christ is mediating for men who will end up in hell? And, if they end up in hell, what good did His mediation do?
Gordon: In what sense does Christ mediate for Kings as a class of men?
ReplyDeleteThe good of Christ's mediation is heaven is available if we want it. People are in hell by their own choice, not because of a failure of Christ.
Hmm... I'm not clear on something. Are you saying that in your reading, the content of the prayers & supplications for rulers is, " that they would be saved"?
ReplyDeleteMandalay,
ReplyDeleteThe good of Christ's mediation is heaven is available if we want it.
Do you mean that Christ is mediating for someone who will not be saved? What exactly does Christ's mediating accomplish then?
People are in hell by their own choice, not because of a failure of Christ.
I agree.
Mark
Mandalay said:
ReplyDelete---
All people vertically and all people horizontally are still the same mathematical set of all people.
---
And I'm sure Paul was really Euclid.
You said:
---
What if I am predudiced against Chinese firemen from Shanghai, with clubbed feet, whose name is Wong, who have blonde curly hair and earn between 300 and 304 yuan per month.
---
Then you're an idiot. (Assuming you asked an honest question, you got an honest response.)
You said:
---
Does Paul's argument extend to them, even if that set of people only has one member?
---
The problem is that you've demonstrated you've not understood Paul's argument. So, to answer your question fully:
A) Yes, Paul's argument extend to them.
B) No, Paul's argument is not what you think it is.
It would help at this point if you actually read the whole post.
You said:
---
Paul's first point is to pray for all men, and his clarification is that it even includes Kings.
---
If you mean all people universally, you don't need to include subsets (this kinda goes back to your mathematics idea from before, eh?).
You said:
---
If the "all men" means all kinds of men in v4, then logically it should be so in v5 also.
---
Exactly, but this hurts your position (which you would know if you actually read the post, seeing as how Alan actually addressed this point).
You said:
---
If so, and if mediation equals salvation, then all Kings must be saved if one is, and all Firemen must be saved if one is.
---
But under your scheme, if all means all men no matter what, then all are saved regardless.
Now here's a simple lesson for you. Put "kinds of" after "all" in the passage, and you'll see it's actually consistent. Namely:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all kinds of people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all kinds of people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all kinds of, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Now regardless of whether you agree with that qualification of "all" or not, you have to admit that Calvinists are at least interpreting the entire passage consistently. There is no contradiction between verse 1 and verse 4 or verse 6 in the Calvinist position.
This was deep but very interesting.
ReplyDeleteAm I being too simplistic to just refer to Romans 8:29, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son.." Those God "foreknew" just refers to those whom he knew before the foundation of the earth that would submit to him. Though he desires that none should perish, he knew in advance those that would accept the good news of salvation. He is not a respecter of persons, he just knows who will come.
www.mlordi.wordpress.com
"All people vertically and all people horizontally are still the same mathematical set of all people."
ReplyDeleteNo, Paul is using "all" in a qualitative sense, i.e. all without distinction, not in a quantitative sense, i.e. all without exception. To infer that God wants every king and authority to be saved because everyone falls under every category is to go beyond the text. It could be the case (as Alan showed) that God has chosen some men (but not all) from every category of people and wants them (and only them) to be saved. Thus, we could say, "God wants all men (in the qualitative sense) to be saved."
This becomes quite apparent in Romans 5:18-19.
"Those God "foreknew" just refers to those whom he knew before the foundation of the earth that would submit to him."
The T-bloggers have covered this before, but I'll sum it up.
The term 'foreknow' can mean simply to know ahead of time. In the New Testament, however, it is often used as an active verb. For example, Peter says that God 'foreknew' Christ. Does that simply mean that God knew Christ ahead of time, or does it mean that God decreed Christ's actions ahead of time? The context necessitates the latter.
So, foreknowledge in Rom. 8 refers to God's decree before the foundation of the world while predestination refers to the means of carrying out the decree. See Douglas Moo's Commentary on Romans.
Romans 8:29, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son.." Those God "foreknew" just refers to those whom he knew before the foundation of the earth that would submit to him.
ReplyDelete------------------------
But this verse doesn't say that at all. God's foreknowledge is just that, He knows of them before the foundation of the earth. The verse does not say that he based his election on what actions they would take in the future.
Besides, the bible clearly states that we are not able to believe on God without him first making us, who are spiritually dead, alive. The bible also clearly states that faith and repentance are a gift from God.
So even if the bible teaches that God looks into the future to see if we would choose Him first (which it doesn't) then He would just see Himself bringing to life the spiritually dead, giving that person faith and repentance as a gift. There is nothing in us nor is there any work performed that causes God to elect us.
"Am I being too simplistic to just refer to Romans 8:29, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son.." Those God "foreknew" just refers to those whom he knew before the foundation of the earth that would submit to him."
ReplyDeleteMarianne,
Think about it this way:
1.) What does it mean to foreknow a person?
2.) Is that different from foreknowing a fact about a person?
God foreknows all the facts about everyone who will exist. But he doesn't "foreknow" them all. "Foreknow" is a relationship word. (Compare this to Rom. 11:2, where Paul talks about God's "people whom he foreknew". God had foreknowledge about all ethnic groups... But he knew the Israelites, in a special way.)
Alan said, in the article,
ReplyDeleteIt would be absurd to state that Christ gave himself as a ransom for every single person on this planet, for if he did, every individual would be saved, not to mention that God would have no basis to judge any man for his sins (Cf. Matt. 20:28).
No offense is intended, Alan, but this strikes me as rather sloppy. Surely you are merely begging the question against the proponent of universal atonement, who doesn't hold to a pecuniary mechanism of penal substitution. And if the atonement was not pecuniary, then it is certainly not the case that every individual will be saved; nor that God would have no basis for judgment, if Christ gave himself as a ransom for every single person. Not that I personally agree with that statement—not as it's currently couched, at least.
I'm by no means an Arminian, but I must say I find your exegesis unconvincing. Prima facie, Paul is making a universal statement in verse 1, which he then uses as a basis for calling out the specific sets of people which he does in verse 2; and he then reiterates this universal basis in verses 4 to 6.
Dominic said:
ReplyDelete---
Surely you are merely begging the question against the proponent of universal atonement, who doesn't hold to a pecuniary mechanism of penal substitution.
---
A) The Bible itself goes against universalism.
B) Are you saying that all universalists do not believe in "a pecuniary mechanism of penal substitution" or are you differentiating a sub-set of universalists who happen to be that way?
As I see it, all universalists pretty much must believe in a pecuniary style of atonement, else why the need for a universal atonement in the first place?
[I should note that I am assuming you mean this in the sense that pecuniary atonement is where Christ exchanges His righteousness for a sinner's sinfulness, and the "debt is paid" by that action; if you mean "pecuniary" in a different sense, let me know.]
You said:
---
And if the atonement was not pecuniary, then it is certainly not the case that every individual will be saved...
---
Only because it would be the case the NO individuals would be saved by that atonement....
Hi Peter.
ReplyDeleteA) The Bible itself goes against universalism.
Agreed; but I never mentioned universalism. I mentioned universal atonement.
B) Are you saying that all universalists do not believe in "a pecuniary mechanism of penal substitution" or are you differentiating a sub-set of universalists who happen to be that way?
I wasn't talking about universalists; I was talking about people who believe in universal atonement. I take "universalist" to mean a person who believes in universal salvation. I don't really know what the prevailing view of the atonement is among universalists. It doesn't seem to me that it would really matter whether they see it as pecuniary or judicial, except inasmuch as this may influence their grounds for believing in universalism (pecuniary universalists would not need any appeal to insipid "God is love" arguments if they believed they had an exegetical case for a universal pecuniary atonement).
As I see it, all universalists pretty much must believe in a pecuniary style of atonement, else why the need for a universal atonement in the first place?
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it seems like you have the question backwards. If it matters, could you rephrase it?
[I should note that I am assuming you mean this in the sense that pecuniary atonement is where Christ exchanges His righteousness for a sinner's sinfulness, and the "debt is paid" by that action; if you mean "pecuniary" in a different sense, let me know.]
Er, the pecuniary view is a "financial", transactional view of the atonement. Sins are paid for "dollar for dollar". My sins were quantitatively imputed to Christ. This is opposed to the judicial view, which constitutes payment in kind. You sound more like you're describing judicial payment than pecuniary.
Only because it would be the case the NO individuals would be saved by that atonement....
Well, to borrow a line from our mutual friend Steve, that's an assertion in search of an argument...
Regards,
Bnonn
"Do you mean that Christ is mediating for someone who will not be saved? What exactly does Christ's mediating accomplish then?"
ReplyDeleteChrist is mediating to redeem the whole created order. It wasn't an act he does millions of times for each individual.
"If you mean all people universally, you don't need to include subsets"
You do if you want to answer an objection that surely people who are X, Y or Z must be exceptions. Paul's intention is to remove exceptions and you've turned his argument on his head by making an enormous exception.
"Exactly, but this hurts your position (which you would know if you actually read the post, seeing as how Alan actually addressed this point)"
He addressed it by assuming things about his own position about mediation and ignoring my point.
"But under your scheme, if all means all men no matter what, then all are saved regardless."
No, because I reject the reformed argument about how mediation works. I'm just taking the reformed argument to its absurd conclusion.
"Now here's a simple lesson for you. Put "kinds of" after "all" in the passage, and you'll see it's actually consistent. Namely:
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all kinds of people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all kinds of people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all kinds of, which is the testimony given at the proper time."
Let's rearrange the words so we can see them near their antecedent:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all kinds of people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all kinds of people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and all kinds of men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Now we have Christ as a savior not of men, but of kinds of men. (!) In the reformed understanding of mediation, Christ then isn't saving men, he saves Kings as a whole group and mediates for Kings as a whole group. Christ goes to the Father and says "I mediate for Kings", and all Kings are saved.
"Now regardless of whether you agree with that qualification of "all" or not, you have to admit that Calvinists are at least interpreting the entire passage consistently. "
I admit no such thing.
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteSince there is only one mediator between God & men, it stands to reason that if God desires to save all kinds of men, then even kings will be saved through the mediation of Christ. So yes, there is a sense in which Christ mediates for kinds of men: he mediates for kings as well as for slaves, for men as well as for women, for adults as well as for children, for Jews as well as for Gentiles. This is because He is the only mediator between God & men (as a general category in which all kinds of men are necessarily included). You objection has no force.
Mr. Tennant,
ReplyDeleteAs far as a prima facie reading of I Tim. 2, the universal statement in v. 1 has referrence to quality & not quantity. Paul uses this as a basis for calling out the specific sets of people in v. 2, & he then reiterates the universal qualitative basis in vv. 4-6. As Alan rightly points out, in v. 7 Paul specifically mentions that he was called as an apostle to the Gentiles for this very reason: that God desires all (kinds of) men to be saved (i.e., not just Jews).
"Paul is using "all" in a qualitative sense, i.e. all without distinction, not in a quantitative sense"
ReplyDeleteWhat distinction? Every human being has distinctions, that is the problem.
" It could be the case (as Alan showed) that God has chosen some men (but not all) from every category of people"
Every human being can be categorised so they are the only member. So are you going to turn Paul's argument on its head and allow for people you don't have to pray for?
"The term 'foreknow' can mean simply to know ahead of time. In the New Testament, however, it is often used as an active verb. For example, Peter says that God 'foreknew' Christ. Does that simply mean that God knew Christ ahead of time, or does it mean that God decreed Christ's actions ahead of time? The context necessitates the latter."
1Pet. 1:20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
Whether God had decreed Christ or not, and whether it is or is not in the context, has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of foreknow here. That would be an inference that goes outside of the range of meaning of that particular word. You can't say that a particular paragraph infers X, Y and Z, and then overlay the entire meaning of X, Y and Z into one word.
And the difference with Ro 8, is that foreknow is put at the head of a very specific sequence of events. To put "God's secret will" as an unstated precursor to the sequence is implausible.
"Foreknow" is a relationship word".
It *can* be. Know in English can be both relationship and factual, but in the context of Ro 8, its like saying "Those I foreknew would go to the football game", you wouldn't tend to assume the sense I am using is saying something about my relationship with the people going to the game.
And God has relationships even with the damned. It isn't a very happy relationship. I know people I don't like. I know my enemies. If know simply means in the relationship sense, we are back to universalism. The only way to understand it sensibly is the inference that God knew something about them. So if I'm talking about the Football and who went tot he game and then say "those I foreknew, sat in the West Stand", it would imply something I knew either about them or about what they would do, not about whether I am on friendly terms with them.
"This is because He is the only mediator between God & men (as a general category in which all kinds of men are necessarily included). You objection has no force."
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't pass the sniff test on multiple levels.
First of all, then, I urge that tax deductions be available for all men, for high income earners and blue collar workers, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to have tax deductions.
If we substitute the words to an everyday example, the whole "kinds of men" argument doesn't stack up. The kinds are added to lend force to its universality, not to restrict it to merely at least one man in each class. If a politician gave the above speech, nobody in their right mind would think he was advocating merely that every profession should have at least one member with available tax deductions. Even if you did emphasise in your mind the kinds of professions, all workers are in some profession, so the end is the same with everyone having available deductions.
Dominic,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your clarification; I misread your original response as dealing with universalism. Oh well. C'est la vie, and all that. At least now I understand your question, and I'll get back to you (although I find it more pressing to deal with Mandalay at the moment). No offense to you meant by that! :-)
Mandalay said:
ReplyDelete---
Christ is mediating to redeem the whole created order.
---
What a miserable failure He turned out to be then. There are billions of people who go to hell. And frankly, I can come up with many ways that wouldn't violate free will any way whatsoever that would get a whole lot more people into heaven than Jesus currently is doing.
You know, Jesus has the power to personally appear to every atheist and beg them for acceptance for their entire life on Earth. For that matter, Jesus could show up and grant them all miracles, and not let them die until they believe in Him. Or He could be a cosmic Santa Claus and give everyone their three wishes when they rub the lamp or whatever. These things are not beyond an omnipotent God's power, are they?
I find it astonishing that I am smarter than the omniscient God of the universe according to your theology.
You said:
---
You do if you want to answer an objection that surely people who are X, Y or Z must be exceptions. Paul's intention is to remove exceptions and you've turned his argument on his head by making an enormous exception.
---
Or he could have simply said, "All without exception" and be done with it that way. As it is, however, you are still begging the question and assuming Paul was an Arminian rather than dealing with the exegesis that Alan offered already. (Again, it would do you good to actually read what you are responding to.)
You said:
---
He addressed it by assuming things about his own position about mediation and ignoring my point.
---
Your "point" is an unargued assertion lacking exegetical support, one that is instead based on a sorely lacking philosophical assumption (one which I already demonstrated leads to me being more intelligent than God, which ought to be a clue to you that your position is WRONG).
You said:
---
No, because I reject the reformed argument about how mediation works.
---
But the Reformed concept of mediation at least does work, whereas yours (as shown above) leads to me being smarter than God. Seriously, you'd think for all the work God did sending His Son to Earth to die, He'd have put a little more thought into figuring out how to convince doubters of His existence. At the very least, He could just be consistent in it. Think of Thomas for instance, who said he wouldn't believe unless he could put his hand in Christ's side and see the wounds, etc. What did Jesus do? He showed up! But poor atheists over at the Debunking blog say that they'd believe in Jesus showed up and let them touch Him, etc.--asking for nothing more than Thomas got--yet suddenly Jesus is unavailable. Maybe He's too busy counting the hairs on a bald man's scalp, or maybe He doesn't intend to save all men. Maybe He has a different motivation than the one you think.
At the very least, you have to admit that God's "universal love for mankind" is pretty darn low on His list of priorities, since it is apparently trumped by EVERYTHING else that has occured in history.
Anyway, you said:
---
Now we have Christ as a savior not of men, but of kinds of men.
---
Okay, you need a logic lesson.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, there are only two kinds of men in the world. Let's make it simple: tall men and short men. There is an arbitrary distinction between them; it doesn't matter where for the purposes of this argument.
Let us also suppose that there are only four men in the entire world. Ted and Tom are tall men, while Sam and Stan are short men.
Now suppose God says, "I'm going to give Ted a million dollars because I like Ted." Then suppose that God says, "I'm going to give Sam a million dollars because I want to give money to all kinds of men."
Let's evaluate the truth value of the following statements:
S1: God gave money to all men.
Answer: obviously false. Tom and Stan did not get any money.
S2: God gave money to all kinds of men.
Answer: obviously true. There are only two kinds of men in the world (by definition in the above arguement), and God gave money to representatives of each kind.
S3: God only gave money to "kinds of men" not actual men.
Answer: obviously false. Ted and Sam are real people and they really got the money.
You said:
---
I admit no such thing.
---
No one ever said Arminians were great at logical deduction.
"What a miserable failure He turned out to be then. There are billions of people who go to hell."
ReplyDeleteNot because they lack redemption, but because they don't want redemption. Jesus didn't fail to redeem them.
"And frankly, I can come up with many ways that wouldn't violate free will any way whatsoever that would get a whole lot more people into heaven than Jesus currently is doing. "
Luke 16:31 says otherwise.
"Or He could be a cosmic Santa Claus and give everyone their three wishes when they rub the lamp or whatever."
Uh... is this some kind of argument?
"As it is, however, you are still begging the question and assuming Paul was an Arminian"
Why? Do you actually deny that Paul wants us to pray for all men? Nobody here has been brave enough to claim that I need not pray for the blonde curly haired Chinese fireman if I don't want to. May I choose not to pray for some men or not? Is not Paul's point in mentioning Kings to draw even the most problematic and objectionable people into his "all men"? If there are men God doesn't wish to save, then how does that not entitle me not to pray for some men, at least according to the argument presented by Paul, that we pray for all men, because God wants to save all men? Either you claim we don't need to pray for all men, and turn Paul's argument on his head, or you admit we should pray for all men, and turn your own argument to shreds.
"one which I already demonstrated leads to me being more intelligent than God"
Nonsense. You assume that more people could repent if freewill exists and if you ran the universe. But this is a fact not in evidence.
"But the Reformed concept of mediation at least does work, whereas yours (as shown above) leads to me being smarter than God. "
I'm astonished that you think this is an argument, let alone a good one. You essentially have to assume what you wish to prove.
" Think of Thomas for instance, who said he wouldn't believe unless he could put his hand in Christ's side and see the wounds, etc. What did Jesus do? He showed up!"
Yes, he showed up. I notice he didn't wave his predestination wand and zap him with faith. God decides how much miracles to reveal to what people. For you, Christ didn't need to come, when he could just wield his magic predestination faith wand.
"But poor atheists over at the Debunking blog say that they'd believe in Jesus showed up and let them touch Him, etc."
So they claim, but we can't test this claim. And if God deems that would help them believe, maybe he WOULD show up. Maybe the fact he doesn't show up is because it wouldn't help. But when it would help he does show up.
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, there are only two kinds of men in the world. Let's make it simple: tall men and short men."
The trouble is there are not two kinds, there are as many kinds of men as there are men. This would only be a rational argument if Paul went into great detail in defining particular and precise categorisations of men. The reality of your tall short example is Paul saying God wants people of all heights to be saved. But every man is a slightly different height. That then leads to universalism, otherwise why didn't he save the guy who is 194.538475643cm tall?
Dominic,
ReplyDeleteIt would expedite the discussion if you were to spell out your own position, not so much on the extent of the atonement (although that’s a related issue), but on the efficacy, or not, of the atonement, as you define it. What do you think the atonement does? What does it do for the redeemed? How does it change things?
When you say that Christ died “for” someone, what does the preposition stand for? As you know, “for” is a preposition which expresses purpose. To say that X did Y for Z means that his action was directed towards a particular end.
It’s hard for us to respond to you if we don’t know what we’re responding to. So when you say that Christ died for someone, what does that statement mean to you?
Speaking for myself, as a 5-point Calvinist, when I say that Christ died for someone, I take that to mean that Christ died to effect or procure his salvation. Not something short of that objective. And I also believe that his death achieved its intended design.
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“The good of Christ's mediation is heaven is available if we want it. People are in hell by their own choice, not because of a failure of Christ.”
Does the Good Shepherd wait for the stray sheep to come home. Must the stray sheep want to come home? Choose to come home? Or does the Good Shepherd bring the stray sheep home?
“Christ is mediating to redeem the whole created order.”
Does this mean, according to you, that the whole created order is, in fact, redeemed? If he intended to do something that doesn’t come to pass, then he failed. So I assume you think the whole created order is, in fact, redeemed.
BTW, the whole created order would include the fallen angels. Does the mediation of Christ extend to the fallen agents? Are they redeemed?
“Not because they lack redemption, but because they don't want redemption. Jesus didn't fail to redeem them.”
But why does a redeemed unbeliever wind up in hell? Is he being punished for his unbelief? Is unbelief a sin? Is unbelief culpable?
But if you think Christ redeemed him, then of what is he guilty? What has he done to deserve a hellish fate?
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteNo one in their right mind can come up with such red herrings as you. If what I've said doesn't pass the sniff test, it's because you have a defective sense of smell. In this passage Paul is specifically emphasizing that salvation is not limited to any one particular group of people - salvation is for all kinds. But bowhere is Paul speaking about the NUMBER of people whom God desires to be saved. That is something that you read into this passage because you start with faulty assumptions.
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteWhy? Do you actually deny that Paul wants us to pray for all men? Nobody here has been brave enough to claim that I need not pray for the blonde curly haired Chinese fireman if I don't want to. May I choose not to pray for some men or not? Is not Paul's point in mentioning Kings to draw even the most problematic and objectionable people into his "all men"? If there are men God doesn't wish to save, then how does that not entitle me not to pray for some men, at least according to the argument presented by Paul, that we pray for all men, because God wants to save all men? Either you claim we don't need to pray for all men, and turn Paul's argument on his head, or you admit we should pray for all men, and turn your own argument to shreds.
We don't need to pray for each & every single individual in the world. This doesn't turn Paul's argument on its head in the least. Rather, your argument proves too much & directly contradicts apostolic teaching in I John 5:16 besides.
Paul is saying that they are not to limit their prayers to their own social circles, but should even pray for those in power over them - the very ones oppressing them. Application: You should be willing to pray even for this hypothetical individual against whom you hold a wicked prejudice.
Mandalay said:
ReplyDelete---
Not because they lack redemption, but because they don't want redemption.
---
And why would it be the case that they don't want redemption if such men are not totally depraved?
You said:
---
Jesus didn't fail to redeem them.
---
So you're a universalist after all.
I said:
---
And frankly, I can come up with many ways that wouldn't violate free will any way whatsoever that would get a whole lot more people into heaven than Jesus currently is doing.
---
To which you responded:
---
Luke 16:31 says otherwise.
---
Luke 16:31 only makes sense if you believe in total depravity. For the others reading along, Luke 16:31 (part of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) says:
---
"He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"
---
Mandalay completely skirts the problem for his position that this verse emphasizes. Namely, if people are basically good, then why is it that they would not be convinced by someone rising from the dead? For that matter, why is it that they would not believe Moses and the prophets in the first place?
This is the dirty little secret that Arminians never bother to get around to addressing. Calvinists have an explanation for why people reject God; Arminians do not.
Mandalay said:
---
Why? Do you actually deny that Paul wants us to pray for all men?
---
Yes, I do deny that Paul (and God) wants us to pray for all men without exception. It is physically impossible to do so. Mandalay, when have you prayed for my next door neighbor? When have you prayed for my cousin?
What do you mean you don't know them? You call that an excuse? Paul said ALL!
What do you mean it would take you forever to pray for them by name? Paul said ALL!
Mandalay said:
---
Nobody here has been brave enough to claim that I need not pray for the blonde curly haired Chinese fireman if I don't want to.
---
You're upset because no one has claimed you need not follow your bogus invented theoretical? Fine: you need not follow your bogus invented theoretical.
You said:
---
May I choose not to pray for some men or not?
---
"As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you." (Jeremiah 7:16)
You said:
---
If there are men God doesn't wish to save, then how does that not entitle me not to pray for some men, at least according to the argument presented by Paul, that we pray for all men, because God wants to save all men?
---
A) That sentence doesn't even make sense in English.
B) Your interpretation of Paul is wrong, and has been demonstrated wrong repeatedly. When are you going to actually exegete something?
You said:
---
You assume that more people could repent if freewill exists and if you ran the universe. But this is a fact not in evidence.
---
But I already showed you how I would be able to satisfy all the demands that people ask. If that is insufficent, then YOU MUST BELIEVE IN TOTAL DEPRAVITY.
You said:
---
Yes, he showed up. I notice he didn't wave his predestination wand and zap him with faith.
---
Okay, you're an idiot. God has no "predestination wand." Come back to reality and address the subject.
You said:
---
So they claim, but we can't test this claim. And if God deems that would help them believe, maybe he WOULD show up. Maybe the fact he doesn't show up is because it wouldn't help. But when it would help he does show up.
---
Why wouldn't it do any good? Oh yeah: they're depraved.
You said:
---
God decides how much miracles to reveal to what people.
---
EXACTLY! He doesn't treat all the same. That's sooooooo not fair. Why, it's almost as if God's ELECTING people!
You said:
---
The trouble is there are not two kinds, there are as many kinds of men as there are men. This would only be a rational argument if Paul went into great detail in defining particular and precise categorisations of men. The reality of your tall short example is Paul saying God wants people of all heights to be saved. But every man is a slightly different height. That then leads to universalism, otherwise why didn't he save the guy who is 194.538475643cm tall?
---
All you've done is establish that you're dense enough to have satellites in orbit around your center of mass.
The problem is, BY FREAKING DEFINITION there are only two kinds of men in my example. And as I said, it's an arbitrary cut off as to what that limit is. As in it doesn't matter where you draw the line. It's also true BY THE SAME FREAKING DEFINITION where each of those people in the example fell, and the truth statements that I provided are CORRECT.
I've dealt with idiots on-line many times; I know how to cover my bases before I come up with a simple example because I'm used to clueless dorktards like yourself twisting everything and trying to wiggle out of the obvious. Seriously, if you have to distort something that badly in order to have a chance of escaping, it ought to be a clue to you that your position is DUMB.
It would expedite the discussion if you were to spell out your own position, not so much on the extent of the atonement (although that’s a related issue), but on the efficacy, or not, of the atonement, as you define it. What do you think the atonement does? What does it do for the redeemed? How does it change things?
ReplyDeleteHi Steve, fair point. Let me firstly say that I am not arguing that Alan's exegesis here is wrong. In fact, in the course of reading some of this discussion I think I have come to better understand and appreciate it; so I'm open to him being right. I certainly don't have any theologically motivated reason to reject it. I've just always found it a bit awkward. That said, I am not an exegete—that isn't where my talents lie—so the awkwardness I perceive might be more a reflection of my limitations than of the exegesis itself.
My view of the atonement is judicial, rather than pecuniary, which seems to have become the default Calvinist position. In other words, I don't think the atonement is best analogized as a transaction; as a payment of a monetary debt, with a one-to-one, pain-for-pain correspondence between my sins and the penalty Christ paid. There are four main considerations in my taking this view, which I am working on carefully outlining in a current series on the atonement, so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice to say that I see the atonement as an event where Christ took on sin, rather than sins, paying the full penalty for disobedience; just as we take on his righteousness, rather than his specific acts of righteousness.
When you say that Christ died “for” someone, what does the preposition stand for? As you know, “for” is a preposition which expresses purpose. To say that X did Y for Z means that his action was directed towards a particular end.
I'd say it depends on the context. I would take "for" typically to express a specific intention to save. However, I would also say that Christ died "for" all people quantitatively, in the sense that he made their salvation actually possible—ie, their sin can actually be covered in him, in practice, if they turn and believe. I shouldn't want to confuse this with his specific salvific intent for the elect, however. I don't think he died "for" the reprobate in the way he died for his chosen people.
Speaking for myself, as a 5-point Calvinist, when I say that Christ died for someone, I take that to mean that Christ died to effect or procure his salvation. Not something short of that objective. And I also believe that his death achieved its intended design.
I would say the same thing, though I would tend to say that his death will achieve its intended design, if by "intended design" is meant the procurement of salvation for the elect. Not all people have yet been saved who will be saved; the process of salvation didn't end at the cross.
Hope this helps;
regards,
Bnonn
"Application: You should be willing to pray even for this hypothetical individual against whom you hold a wicked prejudice."
ReplyDeleteWhy should I pray for this individual, according to Paul's argument here, since God doesn't want to save all individuals? The assertion here is that merely God wants to save members of various classes. The implication is that I only need pray for classes of men, since Paul's argument allegedly doesn't extend to individuals, since God does NOT want all individual men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. If God does NOT want all individuals to be saved, then neither need I pray for them, by Paul's argument.
"And why would it be the case that they don't want redemption if such men are not totally depraved?"
ReplyDeleteThat's like asking why anyone would do something wrong if they are not totally depraved. But then you do things wrong while claiming to be regenerate.
"So you're a universalist after all."
No, you're a universalist.
"Mandalay completely skirts the problem for his position that this verse emphasizes. Namely, if people are basically good, then why is it that they would not be convinced by someone rising from the dead? For that matter, why is it that they would not believe Moses and the prophets in the first place?"
Firstly, straw man alert, because nobody mentioned anything about men being "basically good".
Secondly, perhaps because they love their sin more than God, they choose not to believe? There's one answer for you.
" Calvinists have an explanation for why people reject God; Arminians do not."
You've got an answer now, so you can discard that straw man.
"It is physically impossible to do so. Mandalay, when have you prayed for my next door neighbor? When have you prayed for my cousin?"
I pray for all men either corporately or individually. Paul doesn't draw any distinction. Let's throw that straw man away.
Now.... have you prayed for ALL classes of men? Have you prayed for the blonde curly haired firemen in Shanghai earning between 300 and 304 yuan per month?
What do you mean you didn't think of this class of men? You call that an excuse? Paul said ALL!
What do you mean it would take you forever to think up every class of men? Paul said ALL!
Your argument has no force.
"As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you." (Jeremiah 7:16)"
Well now, the exegetical claim was that classes of men referred to social classes and races of men. Now if you want to claim that Jeremiah is saying not to pray for a whole class of men in contradiction to the presented exegesis, how does that help you?
"Why wouldn't it do any good? Oh yeah: they're depraved."
They're depraved and they choose to remain so.
"God decides how much miracles to reveal to what people.
---
EXACTLY! He doesn't treat all the same. That's sooooooo not fair. Why, it's almost as if God's ELECTING people!"
It's not unfair if God's withholding of miracles wouldn't have changed their mind. Luke 16:31 says that it wouldn't change their minds.
BUT
It did change the mind of Thomas, as has already been mentioned.
SO
God will give miracles if and when it can do any good. But he doesn't bother when it wouldn't do any good. This is not Calvinist total depravity.
"The problem is, BY FREAKING DEFINITION there are only two kinds of men in my example."
But your example is not a good one, since Paul leaves the categories open ended. If you can't provide an example that is analogous to the situation, then it fails.
I said:
ReplyDelete---
And why would it be the case that they don't want redemption if such men are not totally depraved?
---
To which Mandalay responded:
---
That's like asking why anyone would do something wrong if they are not totally depraved. But then you do things wrong while claiming to be regenerate.
---
What, do you think our sin nature vanishes and we're perfect people once we're saved?
Regardless, you're missing the scope here. We're not talking about one person who occasionally sins after becoming a believer; we're talking about people who would utterly reject God just because God shows Himself as Who He is. You're saying that that kind of radical rejection of God is NOT due to depravity? What, pray tell, could possibly be depraved then?
You said:
---
No, you're a universalist.
---
There's no possible way you could read any of my statements to come to that conclusion; ergo, you are either incompetant or willfully lying.
You said:
---
Firstly, straw man alert, because nobody mentioned anything about men being "basically good".
---
'Tis the opposite of being depraved. You would know that if you understood words and concepts and ideas.
You said:
---
Secondly, perhaps because they love their sin more than God, they choose not to believe?
---
And WHY THE HECK WOULD A NON-DEPRAVED INDIVIDUAL LOVE SIN MORE THAN GOD??? Seriously, dude, THINK before you respond.
Is it not the definition of depravity to say that one loves sine more than God? Do you really think that's just a "little" sin or something? Seriously, WHAT WORSE SIN COULD THERE BE?
You said:
---
You've got an answer now
---
Yes, the Calvinist answer. You have to resort to depravity, which you reject, in order to prop up the rest of your Arminianism. Your position is self-inconsistent.
You said:
---
I pray for all men either corporately or individually.
---
I'm sure glad you're praying for me generally in a non-specific manner for stereotypical things. Sure makes my life warm and fuzzy. Plus it has the added benefit of making your prayer a pointless waste of time.
"I pray for all men."
"Oh really? When?"
"Just now."
"Just now?"
"Yes, just now. I said: 'Dear Lord, I pray for all men.'"
"Oh how righteous you are."
You said:
---
Now.... have you prayed for ALL classes of men?
---
Are you willfully stupid or were you dropped on your head? (I'm asking you questions that are at your level since you cannot apparently think abstractly.)
You said:
---
Have you prayed for the blonde curly haired firemen in Shanghai earning between 300 and 304 yuan per month?
---
A) That's not a class Paul listed, moron.
B) You make a great Marxist.
You said:
---
Now if you want to claim that Jeremiah is saying not to pray for a whole class of men in contradiction to the presented exegesis, how does that help you?
---
I'd connect the dots for you, but your willfull blindness has demonstrated you're too dumb to grasp it.
For others, note the argument was this:
Mandalay said we had to pray for all men.
I provided a verse that showed Jeremiah was commanded not to pray for certain men, therefore showing that God does not want at least some people prayed for.
This had nothing to do with 1 Timothy; it was answering Mandalay's false claim which he is then trying to IMPORT into 1 Timothy.
You said:
---
They're depraved and they choose to remain so.
---
What else could a depraved person do?
You said:
---
It's not unfair if God's withholding of miracles wouldn't have changed their mind. Luke 16:31 says that it wouldn't change their minds.
---
And you're missing the point that there's a REASON that it wouldn't have changed their minds.
You said:
---
God will give miracles if and when it can do any good. But he doesn't bother when it wouldn't do any good. This is not Calvinist total depravity.
---
Except:
A) God does very few (if any) miracles at all today, so
B) They must not do any good.
Obviously, Thomas was just a better person than everyone else is.
BTW: God did do miracles to many people who rejected Him, as the miracles were not intended to cause them to believe. You'd know this if you could read.
You said:
---
But your example is not a good one, since Paul leaves the categories open ended.
---
No he doesn't, and you're begging the question on that issue. You claim that it's open ended, and my very example shows THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE in a way that is not open ended, thus proving that you actually have to do some exegesis to prove your position rather than claim it by fiat. Your inabiliity to do so proves that my original example was correct.
"What, do you think our sin nature vanishes and we're perfect people once we're saved?"
ReplyDeleteYou seemed to make the claim that anybody who makes bad choices is totally depraved. But the elect make bad choices, and according to Calvinists are regenerate to overcome their depravity. So admit that was a bad argument.
"You're saying that that kind of radical rejection of God is NOT due to depravity?"
All bad choices are due to "depravity". But not a depravity that is beyond the will.
"There's no possible way you could read any of my statements to come to that conclusion; ergo, you are either incompetant or willfully lying."
There's no possible way you could read any of my statements to come to that conclusion; ergo, you are either incompetant or willfully lying.
'Tis the opposite of being depraved. You would know that if you understood words and concepts and ideas."
The argument was about Calvinist total depravity. Not merely "depravity".
"And WHY THE HECK WOULD A NON-DEPRAVED INDIVIDUAL LOVE SIN MORE THAN GOD??? Seriously, dude, THINK before you respond."
Again, the issue is not depravity, it is Calvinist total depravity.
"Is it not the definition of depravity to say that one loves sine more than God"
Do the elect NEVER sin because they love it more than God? If so, that does not support Calvinist total depravity where will to choose is outside the picture.
"I'm sure glad you're praying for me generally in a non-specific manner for stereotypical things. Sure makes my life warm and fuzzy. Plus it has the added benefit of making your prayer a pointless waste of time."
If its a waste of time, why did Paul say to pray for all men? And if you think he is saying to pray for kinds of men, but not individuals, then you're saying Paul's instructions lead to fuzzy and pointless prayers.
"A) That's not a class Paul listed, moron."
"Moron...". Nice guy you are.
So Paul ONLY wants us to pray for Kings and Authorities, and NOT other categories of people? It's amazing how degenerate your interpretation has turned out to be.
"I provided a verse that showed Jeremiah was commanded not to pray for certain men, therefore showing that God does not want at least some people prayed for."
By which I take it you are fully restricting 1Ti 2:4 to Kings and Authorities and NO OTHER CLASSES OF MEN. Amazing.
"What else could a depraved person do?"
Repent. Like the bible says.
"A) God does very few (if any) miracles at all today,"
(i) A claim not in evidence.
(ii) See Luke 16:31
"B) They must not do any good."
(iii) See John 20:28
"God did do miracles to many people who rejected Him"
Which logically does not assist your argument.
KYLE: "Application: You should be willing to pray even for this hypothetical individual against whom you hold a wicked prejudice."
ReplyDeleteMaybe you'd better fight it out with PETER PIKE because he wants to restrict it purely to Paul's category of Kings and authorities.
"Does the Good Shepherd wait for the stray sheep to come home."
ReplyDeleteNo he didn't, he came to earth.
"Must the stray sheep want to come home?"
Yes. That's why in Mt 10:6 the disciples were sent to preach to the lost sheep, not to go out and lasso them.
"Does this mean, according to you, that the whole created order is, in fact, redeemed?"
It's in the process of.
"If he intended to do something that doesn’t come to pass, then he failed."
It will come to pass. Anyone who doesn't want to be in it will not be in the new order.
"BTW, the whole created order would include the fallen angels. Does the mediation of Christ extend to the fallen agents? Are they redeemed?"
I don't know that angels are part of this created order. Their regular abode is outside the corruption of this world.
"But why does a redeemed unbeliever wind up in hell? Is he being punished for his unbelief? Is unbelief a sin? Is unbelief culpable?"
He is not in hell because God feels the necessity to exact vengeance and punishment. He is in hell because of natural justice. Like putting your hand on the stove, the result is the natural outcome of the action. You get burnt because of natural result, not because of someone having to establish a punishment.
Christ had to redeem the corruption to the created order that came about by Adam's sin. This rolling back of corruption redeemed man, as long as he wishes to be part of it.
"But if you think Christ redeemed him, then of what is he guilty? What has he done to deserve a hellish fate?"
Hell is where God is not. By not loving God, he is given exactly what he asked for. We can't talk in terms of getting punishment when he gets what he in fact desires.
Mandalay, you have yet to follow a single argument anyone has presented to you. It is impossible to reason with you because you are completely unreasonable. You read only what you want to read, you make no attempt to understand the situation, and then you impute false arguments to my position. You have yet to deal with any of my arguments, but instead have merely repeated yourself ad nauseum.
ReplyDeleteYou don't realize how pathetic you are. You're like the little boy who says: "It's raining outside" when the sun is shining and there ain't a cloud in the sky. Someone says, "It's not raining because the sun is shining" and you say, "No, it is raining because the grass is wet." "The grass is wet because the sprinkler is on." "Grass can only get wet from rain." "But the sprinkler is on right there. You can see it." "That's the rain falling." "But it's sunny, it can't be raining." "But it must be raining because the grass is wet."
Since you have nothing to offer but repetitions of your previously debunked repetitions of your previously debunked repetitions of yoru previously debunked statement, I have to conclude once again that there is little point in attempting to dialogue with you at all.
As it is, you hallucinate a great deal. You put words in my mouth and then pretend I say them. Hence:
---
Maybe you'd better fight it out with PETER PIKE because he wants to restrict it purely to Paul's category of Kings and authorities.
---
Since you incapable of being reasoned with, go away. Play in your delusional little dream world. Leave the thinking to those who have the prerequisite equipment. As it is, you've already wasted too much of my time. So bye.
I send generalized impersonal warm fuzzy thoughts in a random direction that may be toward you.
DOMINIC BNONN TENNANT SAID:
ReplyDelete“My view of the atonement is judicial, rather than pecuniary, which seems to have become the default Calvinist position. In other words, I don't think the atonement is best analogized as a transaction; as a payment of a monetary debt, with a one-to-one, pain-for-pain correspondence between my sins and the penalty Christ paid. There are four main considerations in my taking this view, which I am working on carefully outlining in a current series on the atonement, so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice to say that I see the atonement as an event where Christ took on sin, rather than sins, paying the full penalty for disobedience; just as we take on his righteousness, rather than his specific acts of righteousness.”
i) As a point of theological method, I don’t think it’s necessary to begin with a fine-grained theory of vicarious satisfaction, then reason back from that theory to the design of the atonement.
Rather, I think it’s sufficient to begin with the effect of Christ’s atonement, then frame our theory of the atonement accordingly. (That’s not the only way to do it, but an adequate procedure.)
So, for example, I don’t think we need to, or ought to, begin with the question of whether the satisfaction was qualitative or quantitative, judicial or pecuniary. And, frankly, there’s a danger here of formulating a doctrine which is underdetermined by Scripture. More precise than Scripture warrants.
ii) Apropos (i), you seem to be shadowboxing with Owen’s theory of vicarious satisfaction, according to which Christ suffered the idem, and not merely the tantundem.
However, limited atonement doesn’t require that refinement. There are Reformed theologian like Cunningham, Bavinck, and Turretin who share Owen’s commitment to limited atonement, but don’t feel the need to insist on the idem view of vicarious satisfaction.
“However, I would also say that Christ died ‘for’ all people quantitatively, in the sense that he made their salvation actually possible—ie, their sin can actually be covered in him, in practice, if they turn and believe.”
What’s the value of this counterfactual possibility? How is that of value to, let us say, Pompey or Hannibal?
“I would say the same thing, though I would tend to say that his death will achieve its intended design, if by "intended design" is meant the procurement of salvation for the elect. Not all people have yet been saved who will be saved; the process of salvation didn't end at the cross.”
You’re welcome to change the tense. I don’t have a problem with that.
Where I do have a problem is this: if Christ made atonement for all men, but only some men are saved, then in what sense is any man saved by the atonement of Christ?
On your view, the atonement itself is not a differential factor. So what’s the differential factor?
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteThere are any number of reasons you should pray for Wong the curly-haired Chinese fireman. Is he oppressing you? Pray for him. Is he ill? Pray for him. Is he unsaved? Pray for him. You don't know whether God desires to saved Wong, but you do know that God desires to save all sorts of people.
The point of what Paul writes is especially that would should not refuse to pray for someone because they're not part of the right "group," but we should pray for all kinds of men, & especially those in authority so that we can live peaceably. The only reason you should refuse to pray for anyone is if you know them to be guilty of the sin leading to death (I John 5:16). But this does not create a positive obligation to pray for every single individual in the world; Peter Pike is quite right to point out that it is simply impossible. He & I are in agreement as far as I can tell.
Hey Steve; thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeletei) As a point of theological method, I don’t think it’s necessary to begin with a fine-grained theory of vicarious satisfaction, then reason back from that theory to the design of the atonement.
I agree; and that isn't the approach I've taken, though it may appear that way sometimes. Both my fine-grained theory of satisfaction, and my view on the design of the atonement, have been influenced by various considerations, and have evolved in parallel. I don't think one necessarily precedes the other; rather, one view has changed due to some factor, and then I have seen that the other is now incongruent with it, and have had to adjust it also.
Rather, I think it’s sufficient to begin with the effect of Christ’s atonement, then frame our theory of the atonement accordingly. (That’s not the only way to do it, but an adequate procedure.)
That depends on how widely you frame the "effect". I would include, in the effect of the atonement, the grounds which it establishes for things like the universal offer, command, and promise of the gospel, and of Christian faith itself.
What’s the value of this counterfactual possibility? How is that of value to, let us say, Pompey or Hannibal?
See above—I don't argue that the value is for the reprobate, per se. I'm not taking some limp-wristed Arminian view. The value is that God's integrity is upheld. That said, I do see the possibility that there is value for the reprobate inasmuch as the atonement purchases a temporary reprieve from judgment without God being unjust. I don't have a considered opinion on that at the moment, but it seems congruent to me that if saving grace is extended on the basis of Christ's work, then common grace might be extended on the same basis. This is, of course, regardless of God's ultimate intentions toward the reprobate—his common grace could be entirely for the benefit of the elect.
Where I do have a problem is this: if Christ made atonement for all men, but only some men are saved, then in what sense is any man saved by the atonement of Christ?
On your view, the atonement itself is not a differential factor. So what’s the differential factor?
I think maybe this question is relying on a use of the word "for" with which I'd not agree. Remember, from my previous comment, "I would take 'for' typically to express a specific intention to save." I don't believe Christ died with the specific intention to save anyone except the elect. So I'd say that the differential factor is God's will. Actually, I guess I'd say that for anything.
Regards,
Bnonn
" The only reason you should refuse to pray for anyone is if you know them to be guilty of the sin leading to death (I John 5:16)."
ReplyDeleteIt only says not to pray about that sin, it doesn't say not to make other prayers. In fact, the typical King or person in authority in Paul's time no doubt would have committed that sin.
"But this does not create a positive obligation to pray for every single individual in the world"
Again with the straw man. No Calvinists have prayed for every class of men either. You'd find few Calvinists who have prayed for Chinese firemen. Why keep bringing up this when you are unwilling to do the equivilent in your interpretation?
Hi Dominic,
ReplyDeleteBut, on your view, the death of Christ doesn’t effect the salvation of everyone he dies for. He somehow dies in one sense of the elect, but dies in another sense for the reprobate. I’m still curious how you internally differentiate the death of Christ. It’s not as if he died twice, one time for the elect and another time for the reprobate. Perhaps you’ll address that question in your ongoing series.
As a practical matter, when Paul enjoins 1C Christians to pray for kings and other officials, what does he have in mind? Should 1C Christians pray for Nebuchadnezzar? Even though he’d been rotting in the grave for centuries? Should they pray for the king of the Aztecs? Even though they didn’t know the Aztecs existed?
ReplyDeleteOr does he mean that 1C Christians should pray for specific individuals who belong to the ruling class? If Claudius happens to be the Emperor, they should pray for Claudius. And they should also pray for the local officials in charge of their own country or municipality—within the far-flung Roman Empire. Isn’t that the point? So it comes down to a subset of individuals.
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteIt only says not to pray about that sin, it doesn't say not to make other prayers. In fact, the typical King or person in authority in Paul's time no doubt would have committed that sin.
I John 5:16 If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request. (ASV)
So we're supposed to pray for life for the brother sinning a sin not unto death, & we're not supposed to pray for life for the brother sinning a sin unto death. But we can pray for a variety of other things for the person sinning a sin unto death? Well, I suppose we could pray an imprecation. But this hardly suits your position. (And do please let me know how you know that the "typical" king or person in authority at the time had committed the sin unto death.)
Again with the straw man. No Calvinists have prayed for every class of men either. You'd find few Calvinists who have prayed for Chinese firemen.
Really, your Chinese fireman is the strawman. "All kinds" doesn't mean we are to search out every possible category we can invent & make sure to pray for people in that category.
"Or does he mean that 1C Christians should pray for specific individuals who belong to the ruling class? If Claudius happens to be the Emperor, they should pray for Claudius."
ReplyDelete1) Yes great we have to overlay our interpretation with common sense.
2) ... but, Claudius is an individual, not a class of men. If you're now saying we need to pray for all individuals within each class of men (that we know about), then to be consistent you would need to say that God wants all individuals in a class of men to be saved.
3) ... and Claudius is probably not saved, and never will be. Paul's argument is we should pray for Kings because he wants them saved. But if he doesn't want Claudius saved, the argument falls flat. I could say, OK I accept God might want some people within the Kings category saved, so maybe there is one King I might come across someday I should pray for, but Claudius really stinks, I don't think he wants to save that particular King. That would be a reasonable conclusion. But its a conclusion probably not far from that of the Christians he was addressing who probably had no desire to pray for Kings. It would to a large extent undermine Paul, since most Kings back then probably stunk, which is why he mentioned them.
"But we can pray for a variety of other things for the person sinning a sin unto death?"
ReplyDeleteYes, how about that they repent? The argument seems to be we should pray God lets them off the hook for minor sins scot free, but not to pray God lets people off scot free for major sins. For that, perhaps major repentance is required.
"And do please let me know how you know that the "typical" king or person in authority at the time had committed the sin unto death."
Whatever major sins he has in mind, I'd put money down the Emperors were doing it.
"Really, your Chinese fireman is the strawman. "All kinds" doesn't mean we are to search out every possible category we can invent & make sure to pray for people in that category."
Great, then I can say the verse extends to individuals without feeling the need to search out and pray for each and every man as an individual.
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yes great we have to overlay our interpretation with common sense.”
I see you’re reversing yourself. You originally said things like “either all men really means all, or else Paul's argument is turned on its head,” “Paul's intention is to remove exceptions.”
Now, however, you’re admitting that “common sense” can make exceptions—in which case “all” doesn’t “really mean all.” Rather, it’s selective. Representative individuals.
“... but, Claudius is an individual, not a class of men. If you're now saying we need to pray for all individuals within each class of men (that we know about), then to be consistent you would need to say that God wants all individuals in a class of men to be saved.”
I see that reading comprehension is not your forte. Go back and interact with what I actually said: “Should 1C Christians pray for Nebuchadnezzar? Even though he’d been rotting in the grave for centuries? Should they pray for the king of the Aztecs? Even though they didn’t know the Aztecs existed?__Or does he mean that 1C Christians should pray for specific individuals who belong to the ruling class? If Claudius happens to be the Emperor, they should pray for Claudius. And they should also pray for the local officials in charge of their own country or municipality—within the far-flung Roman Empire…So it comes down to a subset of individuals.”
You have erected a false dichotomy. Claudius is an individual who belongs to a class of men: rulers. A subset of individuals. Jut like I said.
And I specifically said that 1C Christians wouldn’t need to pray for all individuals within a designated class, viz. Nebuchadnezzar.
Try to practice the elementary mental discipline of responding to what people actually tell you. It’s a real timesaver.
“... and Claudius is probably not saved, and never will be. Paul's argument is we should pray for Kings because he wants them saved. But if he doesn't want Claudius saved, the argument falls flat.”
And why do you think God commands me to pray for the salvation of Claudius if Claudius “is probably not saved, and never will be”? Why should we pray for things we know that God will refuse? What does such a prayer accomplish?
So it’s your interpretation that punctures the Pauline argument, not mine.
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteYes, how about that they repent? The argument seems to be we should pray God lets them off the hook for minor sins scot free, but not to pray God lets people off scot free for major sins. For that, perhaps major repentance is required.
I can hardly believe that you're being serious. What do you think "life" means? We should request "life" for those not sinning the sin unto death, but we should not request "life" for those sinning the sin unto death. Have you heard of "repentance unto life"?
Whatever major sins he has in mind, I'd put money down the Emperors were doing it.
How would you know?
Great, then I can say the verse extends to individuals without feeling the need to search out and pray for each and every man as an individual.
Sorry, doesn't work that way. Unlike arbitrary categories, you cannot invent individuals to pray for out of thin air.
"You originally said things like “either all men really means all, or else Paul's argument is turned on its head,” “Paul's intention is to remove exceptions.”
ReplyDeleteI pray for all, just not individually.
"Now, however, you’re admitting that “common sense” can make exceptions"
I don't see it as an exception to pray corporately.
"If Claudius happens to be the Emperor, they should pray for Claudius. And they should also pray for the local officials in charge of their own country or municipality—within the far-flung Roman Empire…So it comes down to a subset of individuals.”
Since the exegesis presented relies heavily on claiming an exact correspondance between who to pray for and who God wants saved, this implies you are advocating a further restriction on who Paul is teaching use God wants saved. Not even all classes of men now, but only Kings and officials who rule your local area. Funny how all men keeps gettting smaller and smaller.
"And I specifically said that 1C Christians wouldn’t need to pray for all individuals within a designated class"
So its not all classes, and not even applicable to all men in those classes. Is there even anybody left in the vanishingly small group?
"And why do you think God commands me to pray for the salvation of Claudius if Claudius “is probably not saved, and never will be”? Why should we pray for things we know that God will refuse? What does such a prayer accomplish?"
So now you're saying not to even pray for the King if you don't like him? I guess "all men" just became "no men".
"I can hardly believe that you're being serious. What do you think "life" means? We should request "life" for those not sinning the sin unto death, but we should not request "life" for those sinning the sin unto death. Have you heard of "repentance unto life"?"
ReplyDeleteUNTO implies its a 2nd step after the repentance part. The subject at hand is not people who have repented, but those in sin still.
What is your alternative? Once you sin, that's it, finito?
"How would you know?"
The historical record of what pagan emperors were like.
"Sorry, doesn't work that way. Unlike arbitrary categories, you cannot invent individuals to pray for out of thin air."
So what? Do you have a program for enumerating every category of people out of thin air and praying for them?
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteUNTO implies its a 2nd step after the repentance part.
"Unto" implies an object or result: repentance resulting in life. "Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18). It does not imply a "second step" any more than "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:10) implies that there is a second step between belief & righteousness, or "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" implies a second step between confession & salvation.
The subject at hand is not people who have repented, but those in sin still.
Did I say otherwise? John is teaching that we should pray for brothers who are "sinning the sin not unto death," & God will grant them life. (What is it that results in life? Repentance!) But for those "sinning the sin unto death," we are not to pray.
What is your alternative? Once you sin, that's it, finito?
Evidently, once someone has sinned the sin unto death, "it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance" (Heb. 6:6). But "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death" (I John 5:17).
The historical record of what pagan emperors were like.
This is not evidence of the sin unto death. You apparently don't even know what the sin unto death is (you wrote, "Whatever major sins he has in mind"), so again, how would you know whether the Roman emperors were guilty of it, or that kings & persons in authority in Paul's day typically were guilty of it?
So what? Do you have a program for enumerating every category of people out of thin air and praying for them?
No, & I don't need such a program. If I told you that I enjoy "all kinds of food," would you grill me on whether I have tried every possible arbitrary category of food you can come up with? No, because you'd understand that that was never my point.
DOMINIC BNONN TENNANT SAID:
ReplyDelete“My view of the atonement is judicial, rather than pecuniary, which seems to have become the default Calvinist position. In other words, I don't think the atonement is best analogized as a transaction; as a payment of a monetary debt, with a one-to-one, pain-for-pain correspondence between my sins and the penalty Christ paid. There are four main considerations in my taking this view, which I am working on carefully outlining in a current series on the atonement, so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice to say that I see the atonement as an event where Christ took on sin, rather than sins, paying the full penalty for disobedience; just as we take on his righteousness, rather than his specific acts of righteousness.”
1.As I already pointed out, you seem to be shadowboxing with Owen, which is not the only model of limited atonement in Reformed theology. You need to read someone like Turretin or Cunningham so that you don’t end up attacking a straw man. Cf. Cunningham, Historical Theology 2:305ff.
2.For me, to say that Christ died for the sins of the elect is a shorthand expression. If I wanted to express myself with greater precision, this is how I’d put it:
i) The demerit of Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity.
ii) This also results in actual corruption.
iii) In reference to the guilt of the elect, the demerit of Adam’s sin, our actual sins, and our potentials sins, is imputed to Christ.
iv) The guilt of the reprobate (so defined) is not imputed to Christ.
v) The merit of Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the elect.
vi) The merit of Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to the reprobate.
Under (c) I include “potential” sins because, as a matter of historical accident, there are sins I never committed since I didn’t have the opportunity to do so, but had I been placed in that situation, I would have sinned.
For example, if I’d had the occasion to see the beautiful wife of another man, I might have committed the sin of covetousness.
I assume that would also need to be included in the atonement.
Another way of expressing this point is that we have a predisposition to sin. This predisposition takes expression in particular situations, as circumstances present themselves. The same predisposition would also express itself if the sinner were placed in different circumstances.
So there are many cases in which this predisposition remains unexemplified. However, a predisposition to sin is, itself, sinful, and must therefore be the object of atonement if the sinner is to be redeemed.
To state my position more briefly, Christ died for the guilt of the sins of the elect—whether original, actual, or potential sin.
I don’t see that this is at odds with limited atonement, for imputation is inherently and essentially transactional. It involves a transfer of merit or demerit from one party to another. An actuality rather than a potentiality.
And unless you’re a universalist, you have to admit that the scope of the transference can be delimited.
3.Another way of expressing my position is that Christ died, not for sin, or for sins, but for elect sinners. He died in place of the (elect) sinner, not in the place of the sin or sins. And that also dovetails with limited atonement.
The guilt of sin is moral property of individual sinners. It’s not a general quality, like an abstract object, which is exemplified by sinners. The sinner is prior to the sin, not vice versa. Christ dies for their guilt, the guilt of (elect) individuals, and not for some generic guilt.
“I would include, in the effect of the atonement, the grounds which it establishes for things like the universal offer, command, and promise of the gospel, and of Christian faith itself.”
Of course, that’s a stock objection to limited atonement. It suffers from a least two problems:
i) In the examples of evangelistic preaching we have in the NT, the offer of the gospel is never stated in terms of: “Believe that Jesus died for you and you will be saved.”
Now, maybe you’d say that’s a superficial counterargument, for that may be implicit in the offer of the gospel, even if it is never explicitly stated. Which brings me to the next point:
ii) When someone disbelieves in Jesus, what is the content of that disbelief? Does he disbelieve in the following sense: I believe that Christ died for other people, but I don’t believe he died for me.
Or does he disbelieve in this sense: I don’t believe what the NT says about Jesus is true. I don’t think it’s an accurate record of what he said and did.
The content of duty-faith isn’t predicated on belief in unlimited atonement. Rather, it’s predicated on belief in the stated person and work of Christ in the NT.
We could also include the OT types and prophecies. But my immediate point is how the NT describes the sin of disbelief in Jesus. It’s disbelief in what he says about himself, in what the Apostles say about him. Disbelieving his claims. Disbelieving the record of his claims.
“I do see the possibility that there is value for the reprobate inasmuch as the atonement purchases a temporary reprieve from judgment without God being unjust.”
How would the atonement purchase a temporary reprieve for the reprobate unless it is applied to them? And if it’s applied to them, then why would it purchase a merely temporary reprieve rather than wholesale remission of their sins?
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“I pray for all, just not individually.”
So you pray for all the rulers that ever existed…Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Genghis Kahn, Attila the Hun, Charles the Bald, Disraeli, Queen Victoria, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, Justinian I, Philip II, Nero, Nebuchadnezzar, Suleiman the Magnificent, Mao, Lenin, Lorenzo de Medici, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, Rutherford B. Hayes, &c.
“I don't see it as an exception to pray corporately.”
Meaning what? Is your corporate prayer a form prayer with a series of unfilled blanks?
“Since the exegesis presented relies heavily on claiming an exact correspondance between who to pray for and who God wants saved, this implies you are advocating a further restriction on who Paul is teaching use God wants saved. Not even all classes of men now, but only Kings and officials who rule your local area. Funny how all men keeps gettting smaller and smaller.”
I use the example of kings because Paul uses the example of kings. My restricted illustration is based on his restricted illustration.
And, no, I don’t pray for the prince of Monaco or the Grand Duke of Luxembourg or the Chinese Premier or the Italian Prime Minister or the president of France or the Grand Mufti of Marseille or the mayor of Bucharest or the Sultan of Foumban.
And when Paul told 1C Christians to pray for kings, I don’t think he was instructing them to pray for Cyrus or Darius or Jehoshaphat or Sargon I or Ramses II or the king of Siam or the chief of the Cherokee.
No, he expected them to pray for their own rulers, the rulers who impacted their daily lives. That’s the explicit context of Paul’s statement (1 Tim 2:2).
“So its not all classes, and not even applicable to all men in those classes. Is there even anybody left in the vanishingly small group?”
Anybody left? What about the people that Paul actually intended us to pray for, like our current rulers?
“So now you're saying not to even pray for the King if you don't like him? I guess ‘all men’ just became ‘no men’.”
Now you’ve proven yourself to be a bald-faced liar. Is that what I said? No.
I was responding to something you said: “And why do you think God commands me to pray for the salvation of Claudius if Claudius ‘is probably not saved, and never will be’? Why should we pray for things we know that God will refuse? What does such a prayer accomplish?"
Did I say anything about not praying for kings we “dislike”? No. That’s a willfully dishonest misstatement of what I actually said.
It speaks poorly to your own integrity that you resort to such a shameless, demonstrable lie.
And you use that bald-faced lie to dodge the implications of your own stated position. Why do you think God would command a Christian to pray for the salvation of someone who, by your own admission, will never will be saved?
Do you claim that we should knowingly pray for damned?
"It does not imply a "second step" any more than..."
ReplyDeleteSo you haven't heard of a concept called ordo salutus?
"John is teaching that we should pray for brothers who are "sinning the sin not unto death,"
No, it doesn't say that. It says we shouldn't pray for life for those who are sinning this sin. I believe this means there has to be repentance first before there can be life for this person.
"Evidently, once someone has sinned the sin unto death, "it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance" (Heb. 6:6).
That assumes these are parallel categories of people. Since 1 John calls this person his "brother", that doesn't seem likely to me, whereas in Heb the person is "fallen away", and one would not call someone fallen away a brother.
In any case, the Calvinist can't make head or tail of Heb 6:6,
"You apparently don't even know what the sin unto death is"
I think it’s a serious sin. It's the only thing that makes sense in the context.
"If I told you that I enjoy "all kinds of food," would you grill me on whether I have tried every possible arbitrary category of food you can come up with? No, because you'd understand that that was never my point."
Actually, I would grill you, because that is a very wide ranging claim. I would never say I enjoy all kinds of food, even though my tastes are quite wide ranging.
I told you he was unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteMandalay,
ReplyDeleteSo you haven't heard of a concept called ordo salutus?
Irrelevant, red herring. Yes, I have heard of the ordo salutis. It has nothing to do with the semantic implication of "unto."
No, it doesn't say that. It says we shouldn't pray for life for those who are sinning this sin. I believe this means there has to be repentance first before there can be life for this person.
This is utter nonsense. You think for those not sinning the sin unto death, we are to request that God grant them life without repentance? That's the only way you can justify your bizarre reading, & to read it that way does violence to the entirety of Scripture.
That assumes these are parallel categories of people. Since 1 John calls this person his "brother", that doesn't seem likely to me, whereas in Heb the person is "fallen away", and one would not call someone fallen away a brother.
John's whole letter is about false brothers who fell away. "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (I John 2:19). He frequently mentions "he who hates his brother" & says that such a one does not know God - the one who hates his brother manifests his false brotherhood. So, yes, it is a parallel category.
In any case, the Calvinist can't make head or tail of Heb 6:6.
Yes, the Calvinist can, particularly with referrence to I John 2:19. Not all that difficult, really.
I think it’s a serious sin. It's the only thing that makes sense in the context.
It is obviously a serious sin, but you have not identified what serious sin it is, & thus have no reason to go about making grand claims about how the typical king in that time was guilty of said sin.
Actually, I would grill you, because that is a very wide ranging claim. I would never say I enjoy all kinds of food, even though my tastes are quite wide ranging.
Then you're simply unreasonable.
"Yes, I have heard of the ordo salutis. It has nothing to do with the semantic implication of "unto.""
ReplyDeleteApparently you don't comprehend that when discussing ordo salutis, repentance preceeds forgiveness.
" That's the only way you can justify your bizarre reading, & to read it that way does violence to the entirety of Scripture."
It doesn't do violence to scripture. John himself says "there is a sin not leading to death" and "And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate", yet he also says "No one who is born of God practices sin". There is a difference between flagrent and continual sin, and minor everyday sins.
"John's whole letter is about false brothers who fell away. "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (I John 2:19)"
That you have to appeal to a verse three chapters earlier shows the poverty of your claim. I might just as well say the whole letter is about repenting of sins to stay in the faith. 1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
"It is obviously a serious sin, but you have not identified what serious sin it is"
Since the text doesn't identifiy a particular serious sin, clearly God didn't want us to associate it with a particular one. These things should be obvious.
"Then you're simply unreasonable."
I'm unreasonable because I am not sloppy with my words and interpreting others' words? I guess that rubs off in my unwillingness to treat the word of God as sloppily as you do.
Apparently you don't comprehend that when discussing ordo salutis, repentance preceeds forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteWe weren't discussing the ordo salutis, we were discussing what "unto" implies, as in, "repentance unto life." You introduced the ordo salutis as though it were an argument against what I said about the implication of "unto." But what is it for God to grant forgiveness without granting life? In order to forgive, God must remove the penalty of death, i.e., He must grant life. And we are prohibited from requesting of God that the one sinning the sin unto death be granted life. By logical implication, this means we are not to ask for their repentance, since repentance results in forgiveness results in life. The point being, "unto" doesn't imply anything about any number of steps. It is meant rather to indicate that one thing results in another - or, that one thing is directed, in purpose or destination, toward another.
It doesn't do violence to scripture. John himself says "there is a sin not leading to death" and "And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate", yet he also says "No one who is born of God practices sin". There is a difference between flagrent and continual sin, and minor everyday sins.
This is a non sequitur. I have already affirmed that there is a "sin not unto death," & John advises that we are to pray for the brother in that situation. However, he also advises that we are not to make request for the brother who "sins the sin unto death." You want to break up the ordo salutis as though we can pray that God grant repentance separately from God granting life. Unless you suggest we can pray that God grant such a one "repentance unto death"?
That you have to appeal to a verse three chapters earlier shows the poverty of your claim. I might just as well say the whole letter is about repenting of sins to stay in the faith. 1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
That you respond in this way shows the poverty of your reading comprehension. The letter is obviously written to a church that has been troubled with false brethren, who denied a few key things, such as that they were sinners & that Christ had come in the flesh. On the one hand John is exposing them for the false brethren that they are & refuting their errors; on the other hand he is exhorting & assuring the others concerning their salvation & faithful conduct.
Since the text doesn't identifiy a particular serious sin, clearly God didn't want us to associate it with a particular one. These things should be obvious.
Obviously John knew what he was talking about; so also did the recipients of his letter. John is not talking about just any serious sin you can dream up.
I'm unreasonable because I am not sloppy with my words and interpreting others' words? I guess that rubs off in my unwillingness to treat the word of God as sloppily as you do.
I have not treated God's word sloppily. I have been very carefully delineating my explanations - and what's more, with referrence to other portions of Scripture! You, on the other hand, are constantly importing ideas into the text that aren't there.
In other words, you would be an amazingly sloppy interpreter of my words if I said, "I enjoy all kinds of food," & you began grilling me on whether I had sampled food from every arbitrary category you could possibly invent.
"So you pray for all the rulers that ever existed…Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius..."
ReplyDeleteYes.
" Is your corporate prayer a form prayer with a series of unfilled blanks? "
Not sure what you mean. I can simply pray for "all men", and single out sub categories and/or individuals as I see fit.
"And, no, I don’t pray for the prince of Monaco or the Grand Duke of Luxembourg or the Chinese Premier or the Italian Prime Minister or the president of France or the Grand Mufti of Marseille or the mayor of Bucharest or the Sultan of Foumban."
Pity.
"No, he expected them to pray for their own rulers, the rulers who impacted their daily lives. That’s the explicit context of Paul’s statement (1 Tim 2:2). "
If he wanted you simply to pray for your own authorities, he would have said "pray for Kings and those in authority", not "pray for all men, and for Kings and those in authority".
"Now you’ve proven yourself to be a bald-faced liar. Is that what I said? No."
You said we don't have to pray for the King if we don't think he will be saved. That gives me freedom to ignore this passage completely.
"Did I say anything about not praying for kings we “dislike”? No."
If the dislike extends to not thinking they will be saved, that is what you said. Accusing me of lying doesn't actually let you escape from what you said.
"Why do you think God would command a Christian to pray for the salvation of someone who, by your own admission, will never will be saved?"
Because unlike you I don't believe God has decided already that they can't be saved, but that he wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. It's right there in the text. We pray for someone not because they WILL be saved, but because God WANTS them to be saved.
"But what is it for God to grant forgiveness without granting life? "
ReplyDeleteIt's a matter of not putting the cart before the horse. I don't pray that Adolf Hitler may have eternal life, I pray that he might repent. Certainly one leads to the other, but you have to get priorities in order. If you pray Adolf Hitler will go to heaven it seems like you are praying that God ignores sin. This is John's point.
"The letter is obviously written to a church that has been troubled with false brethren"
False brethren is not a big theme of the book. He has a great deal deal to say, including the verse I mentioned, before he mentions the false brethren. In fact, the very little he actually says about these false brethren leads me to think this problem isn't very pressing at all. They've already "gone out".
"Obviously John knew what he was talking about; so also did the recipients of his letter."
But you don't? If you don't even claim to know what he is talking about, you do well not to bother quoting it.
"John is not talking about just any serious sin you can dream up."
So you claim.
"In other words, you would be an amazingly sloppy interpreter of my words if I said, "I enjoy all kinds of food," & you began grilling me on whether I had sampled food from every arbitrary category you could possibly invent."
You keep saying it, but you don't say why. If you said "I enjoy all kinds of food", then I said "so come over to my place for dinner, we're having Indian", and then you said "I don't like Indian", you would have backed out of your original statement. And your original statement would be worthless because I might have prepared an Indian meal relying on your claim to enjoy all kinds of food.
You're making a mockery of language. Words have meaning.
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteIt's a matter of not putting the cart before the horse. I don't pray that Adolf Hitler may have eternal life, I pray that he might repent. Certainly one leads to the other, but you have to get priorities in order. If you pray Adolf Hitler will go to heaven it seems like you are praying that God ignores sin. This is John's point.
In your scheme, it's okay for us to pray seemingly for God to ignore the sin not unto death, but not for God to ignore the sin unto death. Your interpretation makes nonsense of John.
False brethren is not a big theme of the book.
Evidently, you don't know how to read. Let me just list out some verses for you that referrence false brethren, their behavior, or their teachings:
1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26; 3:4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17; 4:1, 3, 5, 8, 18, 20; 5:10, 12, 16.
This is 29 verses; I John has 105 verses altogether. So, referrences to false brethren, their behavior, or their teachings occur in more than a quarter of the book, and what's more, in every chapter.
But you don't? If you don't even claim to know what he is talking about, you do well not to bother quoting it.
Do you think I would have connected John's instructions with Heb. 6:6 if I hadn't a clue what John was talking about?
But even if I didn't have any idea what sin John was talking about, my citation of I John 5:16 was to show that your interpretation of I Tim. 2:1-7 is in explicit contradiction to biblical teaching; that is, we are not commanded to pray for every individual. For that purpose, my citation is quite relevant & valid.
On the other hand, your contention that the typical king or person in authority was guilty of the sin unto death, when you can't even say what the sin unto death is, is completely unfounded.
You keep saying it, but you don't say why. If you said "I enjoy all kinds of food", then I said "so come over to my place for dinner, we're having Indian", and then you said "I don't like Indian", you would have backed out of your original statement. And your original statement would be worthless because I might have prepared an Indian meal relying on your claim to enjoy all kinds of food.
That's a nice illustration, & I'd agree; but I never hypothetically qualified my hypothetical statement. Now if, on the other hand, relying on my hypothetical statement that I enjoy "all kinds of food," you hypothetically had prepared a dish of monkey brains boiled in rotten fish broth which I hypothetically disliked, you would not be able to resort to the same defense: all kinds of food does not mean every possible dish.
Words do have meaning after all. You cannot, for example, redefine "unto" to mean "with steps between."
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yes.”
Why do you pray for dead rulers like Marcus Aurelius? Are you trying to pray them out of hell? Pray them out of Purgatory—or Limbo?
What does praying dead rulers have anything to do with Paul’s rationale in v2?
Dead rulers no longer ruler the living. And even if their policies have a continuing impact, praying for a dead ruler does nothing to change the policy since the dead ruler is in no position to change the policy.
“Not sure what you mean. I can simply pray for ‘all men’, and single out sub categories and/or individuals as I see fit.”
So you don’t pray for all men. You make a mockery of prayer. You make a mockery of Biblical language.
Prayer for “all men” doesn’t mean using “all men” as a verbal prayer formula. Intoning the words “all men” in a prayer is not the same thing as praying for all men. We don’t pray for a generic category, but for representative individuals. “All men” is just a placeholder. It needs to be filled in with specific content. Real people. Named individuals.
“Pity.”
So you pray for these individuals, do you? You pray for the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, and his immediate predecessor, and his immediate predecessor, stretching back centuries. Who are the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg? What are their names? What are they like?
And you repeat the same process of the Grand Mufti of Marseilles and the Sultan of Foumban, right?. Who is the Grand Mufti of Marseilles these days? Who was his immediate predecessor? And his immediate predecessor?
“If he wanted you simply to pray for your own authorities, he would have said ‘pray for Kings and those in authority’, not ‘pray for all men, and for Kings and those in authority’.”
Are you trying to play dumb? Did I say we should only pray for kings? No. I used kings as an illustrative example because Paul uses kings as an illustrative example. This is the second time I’ve had to explain that to you. Are you going out of your way to be dishonest? Are you a naturally this dishonest, or is that a carefully cultivated vice on your part?
The question at issue is not whether our prayers are limited to kings. The question, rather, is which kings (or rulers) we are to pray for—in addition to prayers for other individuals belonging to other categories.
Paul gives his rationale in v2. That’s part of the controlling context.
You have a purely formulaic, legalistic concept of prayer in which true prayer is a matter of using certain empty catch phrases. Verbal ritualism.
“You said we don't have to pray for the King if we don't think he will be saved. That gives me freedom to ignore this passage completely.”
I said nothing of the kind. You’re such a liar. I was responding to something you said. And this is the second time I’ve had to point that out to you.
You were the one who chose to frame the issue in those terms, not me. If you’re going to stipulate that, in all probability, Claudius is damned, then you need to explain why we should pray for the damned. Why do you think we should ask God for something in the expectation that he has no intention of answering our prayer? That makes a mockery of prayer. Just go through the motions.
“If the dislike extends to not thinking they will be saved, that is what you said.”
Once again, you prove yourself to be a chronic liar. You have now imputed two positions to me of your own manufacture. You’re the one, not me, who framed the issue in terms praying for a man who, in all likelihood, is damned. That was your characterization, not mine. And you’re the one, not me, who then introduced the notion of disliking such a man.
You attribute to me statements I didn’t say or imply. You are projecting your own framework onto me.
“Accusing me of lying doesn't actually let you escape from what you said.”
I have nothing to escape from since this is a matter of what you said, not what I said. I’m responding to you on your own sorry grounds. First you impute things to me that I didn’t say, then you pretend that I need to escape from your own imputations. For someone who claims to be a Christian, your mendacity is deeply entrenched.
“Because unlike you I don't believe God has decided already that they can't be saved, but that he wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. It's right there in the text. We pray for someone not because they WILL be saved, but because God WANTS them to be saved.”
What is not “right there in the text” is your statement that “Claudius is probably not saved, and never will be.” That’s a claim which you have imported into the text.
Paul doesn’t say, “Pray for the salvation of Claudius even though he will, in all probability, never be saved.”
Does Paul command Christians to pray in the expectation that God will refuse to hear their prayers?
And, even on your own grounds, you don’t pray for everyone. You act as if using the word “everyone” in a prayer is the same thing as praying for everyone.
“Dear Lord, save everyone, in Jesus’ name, Amen.”
The word “everyone” (or “all men”) was never meant to be a permanent substitute for named individuals. “Everyone” is equivalent to “no one” if it fails to designate anyone in particular.
A pronoun is not a prayer. You don’t pray for a pronoun. A pronoun is just a general-purpose stand-in for proper nouns that name a person, place, or thing. A linguistic token.
You can only pray for persons, not pronouns. A pronoun is not a person. Intoning a pronoun is not the same thing as praying for a person.
You don’t understand the function of language, and—what is worse—you don’t know the first thing about prayer. You’re a legalist who reduces prayer to an empty formula. Lining up the right pronouns in the right order. Verbal tokenism.
"Let me just list out some verses for you that referrence false brethren, their behavior, or their teachings: 1:6, 8, 10;"
ReplyDeleteThese are not about being "troubled by false brethren". These are warnings about not to fall into errors. That's why he says IF WE.... do X etc.
and "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that YOU may not sin.", NOT "My little children, I am writing these things to you because you've been troubled by false brethren"
"Do you think I would have connected John's instructions with Heb. 6:6 if I hadn't a clue what John was talking about?"
I don't know, because what you're saying about 1 John isn't making much sense because they are called brothers not false brothers.
"was to show that your interpretation of I Tim. 2:1-7 is in explicit contradiction to biblical teaching; that is, we are not commanded to pray for every individual. For that purpose, my citation is quite relevant & valid."
But it's only a specific kind of prayer, not a blanket prohibition. And if it was a blanket prohibition you haven't shown how it wouldn't prohibit praying for your typical Roman pagan king or authority, which would then defeat Paul's aim.
"when you can't even say what the sin unto death is, is completely unfounded."
I don't need to name a specific sin, because its not my contention that it is a specific one.
"Now if, on the other hand, relying on my hypothetical statement that I enjoy "all kinds of food," you hypothetically had prepared a dish of monkey brains boiled in rotten fish broth which I hypothetically disliked, you would not be able to resort to the same defense: all kinds of food does not mean every possible dish."
You bring up monkey brains because that's a dish that would make a lot of people balk. The equivalent in prayer was Kings and authorities which Christians balked at praying for. Kings are the prayer equivalent of monkey brains. So the equivalent is if I asked: "Do you really like all food?", and you answer, "I like to eat all food, monkey brains, rotten fish broth, weird beetles, because God wants all food to be eaten". I say "fine, come over for dinner", whereupon I serve escargot. If you then don't like that dish, you've backed out.
"Why do you pray for dead rulers like Marcus Aurelius? Are you trying to pray them out of hell? Pray them out of Purgatory—or Limbo?"
ReplyDeleteI don't have to know exactly why, it's enough to be told to do it. I could speculate it is because of 1Pet. 4:6 "For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead".
Now the gospel means good news, so if it is good news to people who are dead but haven't heard it before... well I think one can connect the dots.
"Dead rulers no longer ruler the living. And even if their policies have a continuing impact, praying for a dead ruler does nothing to change the policy since the dead ruler is in no position to change the policy."
What has policy got to do with it? Paul didn't say to pray for Kings and authorities because they change policy. He said to do it because he wants all men to be saved.
"Intoning the words “all men” in a prayer is not the same thing as praying for all men. "
So you claim, but that's just your rather odd opinion.
" “All men” is just a placeholder. It needs to be filled in with specific content. Real people. Named individuals."
It's not an either/or proposition. Paul mentions both, the overall group, and then some categories.
"Who are the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg? What are their names? What are they like? "
I don't know and I don't need to know. Come to that, if I live in a remote area and I don't know the name of the President it doesn't stop me from being as specific or as general as circumstances warrant.
"No. I used kings as an illustrative example because Paul uses kings as an illustrative example. "
Yes, and its an open ended illustrative example. I see no reason not to mention the Grand Mufti if I feel led to single him out, even if he doesn't affect local policy.
"in addition to prayers for other individuals belonging to other categories."
Like Grand Mufti's for example?
"You have a purely formulaic, legalistic concept of prayer in which true prayer is a matter of using certain empty catch phrases. Verbal ritualism."
Nonsense. I don't limit Paul's point to anything. You can pray for all men, categories, individuals, dead, alive. The whole world of possibilities is open. You on the other hand want to severely restrict it, in ways that are frankly extremely confusing.
"If you’re going to stipulate that, in all probability, Claudius is damned, then you need to explain why we should pray for the damned."
So how am I a liar when you seem to be accepting the premise that you don't need to pray for leaders who you think are damned? It's no use saying I am a liar for suggesting that, and then seeming to accept it at the same time.
"Does Paul command Christians to pray in the expectation that God will refuse to hear their prayers? "
Calvinists do, because they pray for various individuals knowing full well that some of them are going to be irrevokably damned.
"The word “everyone” (or “all men”) was never meant to be a permanent substitute for named individuals."
Straw man. Nobody said all men is a substitute for individuals. All options are available.
"A pronoun is not a prayer. You don’t pray for a pronoun. A pronoun is just a general-purpose stand-in for proper nouns that name a person, place, or thing. A linguistic token."
????
The token refers to real human beings. They don't stop being real human beings because I use a token. One's spouse doesn't cease to be a real person because I use "he" or "she".
"You’re a legalist who reduces prayer to an empty formula."
What, like "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be..."?
Mandalay,
ReplyDeleteThese are not about being "troubled by false brethren". These are warnings about not to fall into errors. That's why he says IF WE.... do X etc.
Apparently in your bizarro world John has no particular occasion to speak to these issues. "Yeah, there were some false brethren around, you know, but no one was troubled by those guys! That's why I'm writing you."
I don't know, because what you're saying about 1 John isn't making much sense because they are called brothers not false brothers.
So, those brothers who hate their brothers & are therefore liars, walking in darkness, and not of God, are true brothers?
But it's only a specific kind of prayer, not a blanket prohibition. And if it was a blanket prohibition you haven't shown how it wouldn't prohibit praying for your typical Roman pagan king or authority, which would then defeat Paul's aim.
It's a blanket prohibition of making request for the one sinning the sin unto death. This is only a problem for my understanding of Paul if I accept your bare assertion that John is referring in a vague & general way to serious sins. But why should I accept your assertion?
You bring up monkey brains because that's a dish that would make a lot of people balk. The equivalent in prayer was Kings and authorities which Christians balked at praying for. Kings are the prayer equivalent of monkey brains. So the equivalent is if I asked: "Do you really like all food?", and you answer, "I like to eat all food, monkey brains, rotten fish broth, weird beetles, because God wants all food to be eaten". I say "fine, come over for dinner", whereupon I serve escargot. If you then don't like that dish, you've backed out.
Actually, kings are more the equivalent of Indian food (oy! not kosher!) than monkey brains (barf!). Monkey brains would be Hitler while he is currently burning in hell. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Thanks for the exchange, Mandalay, but I'm not going to waste any further time with you.
"Apparently in your bizarro world John has no particular occasion to speak to these issues."
ReplyDeleteLater on in the letter it sounds like there may have been some incident which has now passed, but its not the main theme of the letter. I don't know why you insist on reading every sentence through the lens of your pre-conceived agenda.
"So, those brothers who hate their brothers & are therefore liars, walking in darkness, and not of God, are true brothers? "
John is warning the brothers not to do these things or then they WOULD be walking in darkness. He is not saying he has in mind people like that existing now. Why do you refuse to put all the data into evaluating the situation, instead of focusing on just one element to prop up a pre-conceived agenda?
"This is only a problem for my understanding of Paul if I accept your bare assertion that John is referring in a vague & general way to serious sins. But why should I accept your assertion?"
I just spend 2 minutes looking in the early church writings, in case what I am saying is off the wall, it only took a second to see Tertullian referring to this interpretation: " “Every unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin unto death. But we know that every one who hath been born of God sinneth not”— to wit, the sin which is unto death. Thus there is no course left for you, but either to deny that adultery and fornication are mortal sins; or else to confess them irremissible"
So apparently what is obvious to me was obvious to the early church too.
Why does it mean a serious sin? "All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death." John intermixes the ideas of "all unrighteousness" and "sin not to death". Those categories of "all sin" and "sins to death/not to death" must be somehow interrelated. The idea that this sin is just one particular peculiar sin is not warranted by the context. Plus he is referring to brothers, not false brothers.
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“I don't have to know exactly why, it's enough to be told to do it.”
There is no scriptural command to pray for the dead.
“I could speculate it is because of 1Pet. 4:6…Now the gospel means good news, so if it is good news to people who are dead but haven't heard it before... well I think one can connect the dots.”
Not surprisingly, you use one misinterpretation to prop up another misinterpretation. Here’s a novel idea for you: why don’t you read a decent commentary on 1 Pet 4:6 and learn what the verse actually means. A good place to start is Karen Jobes’ commentary, pp270-73.
“What has policy got to do with it? Paul didn't say to pray for Kings and authorities because they change policy.”
I already explained that to you. Read verse 2. Note the connection between the first clause and the second clause. We’re dealing with a purpose statement.
You don’t know the first thing about how to interpret the Bible. You erroneously skip over v2 and jump ahead to v4. You need to learn how to read in context.
“So you claim, but that's just your rather odd opinion.”
Only odd to you because you don’t know how the parts of speech are meant to function.
“It's not an either/or proposition. Paul mentions both, the overall group, and then some categories.”
It is an either/or proposition. You don’t know the function of pronouns.
“I don't know and I don't need to know.”
You need to know if you’re going to be consistent with your (mis-)interpretation of 1 Tim 2. If you don’t know who the Dukes of Luxembourg are, then you can’t pray for them.
“Come to that, if I live in a remote area and I don't know the name of the President it doesn't stop me from being as specific or as general as circumstances warrant.”
You’re adding extraneous qualifications which are inconsistent with your (mis-)interpretation of 1 Tim 2.
“Yes, and its an open ended illustrative example. I see no reason not to mention the Grand Mufti if I feel led to single him out, even if he doesn't affect local policy.”
Because that disregards the purpose statement in v2. According to Paul’s stated rationale in v2, the reason to pray for a ruler is so that his official policies will make it possible for Christians to enjoy a particular lifestyle.
In the nature of the case, that rationale only applies to living rulers whose policies impact your lifestyle. Not to dead rulers. And not to living rulers who don’t rule over you.
“Like Grand Mufti's for example?”
Only if you were a Muslim or dhimmi living under his thumb.
“Nonsense. I don't limit Paul's point to anything. You can pray for all men, categories, individuals, dead, alive. The whole world of possibilities is open.”
You can also pray for the salvation of the Devil if you like. And pray for aliens on other planets. And pray for Judas.
You can pray as many unscriptural prayers as you please. Feel free to pray to Zeus, Baal, and Thor and Dagon while you’re at it. Don’t forget to include griffins and unicorns in your prayers. As well as Peter Pan and the tooth fairy.
“You on the other hand want to severely restrict it, in ways that are frankly extremely confusing.”
It’s only confusing to you because you’ve never had to exercise any mental discipline before. I’m drawing quite elementary distinctions.
“So how am I a liar when you seem to be accepting the premise that you don't need to pray for leaders who you think are damned? It's no use saying I am a liar for suggesting that, and then seeming to accept it at the same time.”
You were the one who introduced the damnatory status of Claudius, not me. You’re also the only who acts as if the only way to pray for a ruler is to pray for his salvation.
“Calvinists do, because they pray for various individuals knowing full well that some of them are going to be irrevokably damned.”
That’s another one of your bald-faced lies. A Calvinist doesn’t know which individuals are elect or reprobate.
And you’re also ducking the issue by trying to shift the question. You need to answer this question for yourself.
Why would you pray to God to save all men when you know that God has no intention of doing so?
This is not the same as praying for individuals whose fate is unknown to you.
If you say a prayer in which you use the words “God save everyone,” then you’re praying a prayer that you know in advance God will refuse.
You don’t know which ones will be saved and which ones will be damned, but if, instead of prayer for individuals, you pray for the salvation in ever individual by asking God to “save everyone,” then you know you’re asking God to do something he will never do.
“Straw man. Nobody said all men is a substitute for individuals. All options are available.”
If you mistakenly treat the universal quantifier as exhaustive (i.e. every individual), which is what Arminians do, then there’s no distinction between “all” men and individual men.
If you treat the universal quantifier as exhaustive, then that commits you to prayer for the damned, which is heretical. That’s the reductio ad absurdum of your position.
“The token refers to real human beings. They don't stop being real human beings because I use a token. One's spouse doesn't cease to be a real person because I use ‘he’ or ‘she’.”
That illustration proves my point, not yours, since you’re using the pronoun to designate a known individual.
Lacking that correspondence, intoning the pronoun only means that you’re praying for a pronoun rather than a person.
If you were to pray to God to “save him” or “save her,” with no one in mind, you would be praying for a pronoun rather than a person.
You would merely be reciting words, like a Kurtweil machine.
“What, like ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be...’?”
Now, once again, you’re trying to shift the subject since you’re unable to deal with the correct interpretation of 1 Tim 2.
"There is no scriptural command to pray for the dead"
ReplyDeleteDepending on what canon you recognise I guess. Modern day Jews pray for the dead. Ancient Jews did. The early Church did. Even the 1549 book of Common prayer does.
And then of course, you are assuming what you have to prove about this verse.
"Read verse 2. Note the connection between the first clause and the second clause. We’re dealing with a purpose statement."
If you are going to read it through the lens of assuming the prayers are so that authorities give you a quiet life, then you've broken the link with the following verse about desiring all men to be saved being equivalent to prayer for all men. Maybe then we need a quiet and peaceful life to preach the gospel so that all men can be saved? But then you've broken the link between prayer for all men and saving all men, which is the foundation of this exegetical argument. If the reason we pray for ALL men is not directly analogous to God wanting to save ALL men, then the cause for inserting categories of men into v4 is abandoned.
So make up your mind - do we pray for all men to lead a quiet life, or because God wants all men to be saved?
"Only odd to you because you don’t know how the parts of speech are meant to function."
This is not an argument, just bluster.
"It is an either/or proposition. You don’t know the function of pronouns. "
More bluster.
" If you don’t know who the Dukes of Luxembourg are, then you can’t pray for them. "
Why? What precisely do I need to know about someone to pray for them? Their appearance? That's a bit tough. Their name? Why? What is special about a name? Their social security number perhaps?
"You’re adding extraneous qualifications which are inconsistent with your (mis-)interpretation of 1 Tim 2."
More bluster.
" According to Paul’s stated rationale in v2, the reason to pray for a ruler is so that his official policies will make it possible for Christians to enjoy a particular lifestyle."
You assume that a quiet and peaceful life is purely a function of rulers and not living peacefully with all men.
"You’re also the only who acts as if the only way to pray for a ruler is to pray for his salvation."
Again, I'm just following through the premise of this exegesis that prayer for ALL MEN is a parallel to God wanting ALL MEN to be saved. If you abandon that claim of parallel, fine, but you'll have to come up with a new exegesis.
"That’s another one of your bald-faced lies. A Calvinist doesn’t know which individuals are elect or reprobate."
Calvinists pray for hundreds and thousands of individuals. Statistically speaking, if the road to damnation is wider than that to salvation, the chance they will all be saved is approaching zero.
"Why would you pray to God to save all men when you know that God has no intention of doing so?"
I don't remember saying that the content of the prayer must be only that they are saved. It could be, for example, that the gospel is preached to them.
Why do you pray for anyone at all since you believe God has predestined from the beginning of the world who will be saved, and thus anybody you pray for can only be useless if they will inevitably be saved, or against God if he has no intention of doing? Either way you know that God has no intention of responding to your prayer.
"If you treat the universal quantifier as exhaustive, then that commits you to prayer for the damned, which is heretical. That’s the reductio ad absurdum of your position."
We don't know that anybody is damned yet. If you know for sure someone is damned, give me a list of names.
"That illustration proves my point, not yours, since you’re using the pronoun to designate a known individual."
That's what happens when you use singular pronouns. If you use plural pronouns ("Americans, they are wonderful"), then specific individuals are not in view.
"Lacking that correspondence, intoning the pronoun only means that you’re praying for a pronoun rather than a person."
There is no such thing as praying for a pronoun. You're not making sense.
"If you were to pray to God to “save him” or “save her,” with no one in mind, you would be praying for a pronoun rather than a person. "
So I can't say "Americans, they are wonderful", because I would be discussing a pronoun, not people?
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Depending on what canon you recognise I guess.”
I use the same canon the Jews did. For more on that, cf. Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church.
“Modern day Jews pray for the dead.”
That’s a pretty meaningless claim since modern-day Jews range all along the theological continuum, from secular Jews to Hassidim.
“Ancient Jews did.”
What ancient Jews? Are you alluding to Macabees? That was never a part of the Jewish canon.
“The early Church did.”
Since I’m not a Catholic or Orthodox believer, that’s neither here nor there. What are you?
“Even the 1549 book of Common prayer does.”
The BCP doesn’t recognize the OT apocrypha (e.g. Macabees) as part of the canon.
Anyway, your appeal commits two additional errors:
i) Appealing to practice doesn’t make it right.
ii) Your position goes beyond prayers for the dead to prayers for the damned. Even on your own grounds, which Jewish or Christian traditions ever prayed for the damned?
“And then of course, you are assuming what you have to prove about this verse.”
Another one of your habitual lies. Did I assume anything? No. I pointed you to a detailed exegesis of your prooftext, remember? When you refute Jobes, we’ll have something to talk about.
“If you are going to read it through the lens of assuming the prayers are so that authorities give you a quiet life, then you've broken the link with the following verse about desiring all men to be saved being equivalent to prayer for all men. Maybe then we need a quiet and peaceful life to preach the gospel so that all men can be saved? But then you've broken the link between prayer for all men and saving all men, which is the foundation of this exegetical argument. If the reason we pray for ALL men is not directly analogous to God wanting to save ALL men, then the cause for inserting categories of men into v4 is abandoned.__So make up your mind - do we pray for all men to lead a quiet life, or because God wants all men to be saved?”
i) You are making absolutely no effort to integrate the purpose statement of v2 into your overall interpretation of the passage. You simply disregard it because it doesn’t fit into your theological scheme.
ii) Since I don’t interpret v4 the way you do, I don’t have a problem integrating both verses into my overall interpretation. I interpret v4 the same way Towner does in his commentary (177-78), as well as Schreiner does, in his monograph on Pauline theology (182ff.).
iii) Your interpretation of v4 also suffers from the fact that you don’t know the function of a universal quantifier.
“This is not an argument, just bluster.”
I supplied my argument in a previous response. Do you suffer from short-term memory loss?
“More bluster.”
Once again, I already gave my supporting argument in a previous response. If your memory is that deficient, you should see a neurologist.
“Why? What precisely do I need to know about someone to pray for them? Their appearance? That's a bit tough. Their name? Why? What is special about a name? Their social security number perhaps?”
For starters, you need to know that there is such a person to pray for him. Otherwise, you’re praying for nonentities.
“More bluster.”
Maybe you’re too obtuse to follow through with the logic of your own argument. So let’s walk you through your own argument:
If you take the universal quantifier as exhaustive, then you must pray for each individual in order to pray for the set of all men.
In that case, the scope of your prayer cannot be narrower than the scope of the command (on your interpretation of the universal quantifier).
“You assume that a quiet and peaceful life is purely a function of rulers and not living peacefully with all men.”
I make no general assumption. I’m taking my cue from Paul’s rationale in v2. You consistently disregard v2.
“Again, I'm just following through the premise of this exegesis that prayer for ALL MEN is a parallel to God wanting ALL MEN to be saved. If you abandon that claim of parallel, fine, but you'll have to come up with a new exegesis.”
I don’t need any new exegesis since there is preexisting exegesis to establish my interpretation. The fact that you’re ignorant of standard exegetical literature (e.g. Schreiner, Towner) is not my problem.
Typing “all men” in caps is no substitute for demonstrating that you understand what the words mean.
“Calvinists pray for hundreds and thousands of individuals. Statistically speaking, if the road to damnation is wider than that to salvation, the chance they will all be saved is approaching zero. “
All you’re doing is to equivocate, and I already anticipated your equivocation in my previous response. We don’t knowingly pray for the damned since we don’t know which individuals are damned.
“I don't remember saying that the content of the prayer must be only that they are saved. It could be, for example, that the gospel is preached to them.”
So you can only salvage your position by departing from your interpretation of 1 Tim 2.
“Why do you pray for anyone at all since you believe God has predestined from the beginning of the world who will be saved, and thus anybody you pray for can only be useless if they will inevitably be saved, or against God if he has no intention of doing? Either way you know that God has no intention of responding to your prayer.”
Do you really think Calvinists are unacquainted with that hackneyed objection? Do you really think we’ve never adressed that hackneyed objection before?
The very fact that you would raise that hackneyed objection betrays the fact that you’ve made no honest effort to acquaint yourself with Reformed theology. What Reformed theologians have you ever read?
All you’re doing here is to confound Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism. Predestination is not irrespective of means. God has appointed the means to the appointed end. To say that salvation is inevitable apart from the means merely exposes your willful ignorance of the position you presume to critique. Do you bring this level of ignorance to every theological tradition you critique, or is there something special about Calvinism in particular that justifies your studied ignorance of the opposing position?
“We don't know that anybody is damned yet. If you know for sure someone is damned, give me a list of names.”
If you’re not saved when you die, you’re damned. Many people have already died. That would include many Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and pagans and atheists, &c, who never exercised saving faith—as Scripture defines it.
“That's what happens when you use singular pronouns. If you use plural pronouns (‘Americans, they are wonderful’), then specific individuals are not in view.”
The general statement that Americans are wonderful would only be true if that general statement corresponds to wonderful individual Americans.
“There is no such thing as praying for a pronoun. You're not making sense.”
I already explained that too you. Are you suffering from a hangover?
If you pray for “everyone,” without having every individual in mind, then you’re simply using the word “everyone” in a prayer without giving the pronoun having its full, referential force. Your prayer fails to denote the individuals in question.
Of course, I don’t construe a universal quantifier the way you do, so my position doesn’t generate the same conundrum.
“So I can't say ‘Americans, they are wonderful’, because I would be discussing a pronoun, not people?”
Unless your statement maps onto wonderful, individual Americans, and unless the general statement corresponds to the individuals who comprise that totality, then nothing stands behind the pronoun.
"I use the same canon the Jews did."
ReplyDeleteWell.. as some Jews I guess. I don't know that they were monolithic.
"That’s a pretty meaningless claim since modern-day Jews range all along the theological continuum"
It's not meaningless when such prayers are in standard and important parts of their services such as the "Kaddish", the "Yizkor" and the "Hazkara".
"What ancient Jews? Are you alluding to Macabees? That was never a part of the Jewish canon."
It doesn't have to be part of the canon to be an authentic representation of Jewish thought and practice.
"Since I’m not a Catholic or Orthodox believer, that’s neither here nor there. What are you?"
I'm Orhtodox.
"i) Appealing to practice doesn’t make it right."
I think you just appealed to Jewish practice concerning the canon.
"ii) Your position goes beyond prayers for the dead to prayers for the damned. Even on your own grounds, which Jewish or Christian traditions ever prayed for the damned?"
There is a saint, whose name escapes me at the moment, who is known for praying for her departed (but unbelieving) son for 30 years or so. After this time she received word from God that she need pray no more, because he was saved. As I said before, nobody is damned yet.
"i) You are making absolutely no effort to integrate the purpose statement of v2 into your overall interpretation of the passage. You simply disregard it because it doesn’t fit into your theological scheme."
I can accept the contention that these prayers are for a peaceful life without assuming that only peace with rulers is needed for such peace.
") Since I don’t interpret v4 the way you do, I don’t have a problem integrating both verses into my overall interpretation. "
But you haven't explained how you can defend the verses as both parallel and not parallel at the same time.
" Your interpretation of v4 also suffers from the fact that you don’t know the function of a universal quantifier."
In predicate logic, universal quantification formalizes the notion that something (a logical predicate) is true for everything, or every relevant thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification)
Err.. who is it that doesn't understand?
"For starters, you need to know that there is such a person to pray for him. Otherwise, you’re praying for nonentities. "
Well, you'd be out of step with everybody I know of. For example, the liturgy of Chrysostom says "For those who travel by sea, and land, for the sick, the suffering, the captive, and for their safety and salvation, let us pray to the Lord." I don't know for sure if there are any people travelling by sea, etc. And I certainly don't know who they are. This has never been an objection in Christendom.
"if you take the universal quantifier as exhaustive, then you must pray for each individual in order to pray for the set of all men. "
You don't seem to recognise that the whole reason we have universal quantifiers is to avoid referring to individuals. If we wanted to enumerate John, Bill and Mary, we wouldn't need the universal quantifier.
"I make no general assumption. I’m taking my cue from Paul’s rationale in v2. You consistently disregard v2."
When I suggested you wanted to restrict the verse purely to rulers, you called me a liar. Pick a position and stick to it. Either Paul is talking exclusively about rulers, and thus v2 is purely about the power of rulers to bring us peace. Or else Paul is speaking more generally about all men, and how it is important for peace to be at peace with all. Which position do you actually want to stand with?
"We don’t knowingly pray for the damned since we don’t know which individuals are damned."
We don't knowingly pray for the damned either. But we both do in fact pray for them. So what is your argument?
"So you can only salvage your position by departing from your interpretation of 1 Tim 2."
How have I supposedly departed?
"Do you really think Calvinists are unacquainted with that hackneyed objection? Do you really think we’ve never adressed that hackneyed objection before?"
Sure you have. But one hackneyed objection deserves a response in kind.
"Do you really think Calvinists are unacquainted with that hackneyed objection? Do you really think we’ve never adressed that hackneyed objection before?"
I never said anything about the means, unless you are saying that praying for the damned is the means for the salvation of the elect. How you would argue that I don't know.
"If you’re not saved when you die, you’re damned. That would include many Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and pagans and atheists, &c, who never exercised saving faith—as Scripture defines it."
Ok, so are babies saved or damned, who never exercised saving faith? If you say some or all are, do you extend it to the mentally ill? Why not extend it to those who never heard the gospel? If you say sin, and original sin, then why except babies? Or do you except them? How do the mothers in your church like it if they lose a child and you preach that God may have decided they should be predestined to hell, but it's ok?
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Well.. as some Jews I guess. I don't know that they were monolithic.”
In other words, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“It's not meaningless when such prayers are in standard and important parts of their services such as the ‘Kaddish’, the ‘Yizkor’ and the ‘Hazkara’.”
“Their” services? “Standard” for whom? There are many different Jewish sects.
Anyway, mere Jewish tradition is irrelevant to where the truth lies. One needs to sift tradition.
“It doesn't have to be part of the canon to be an authentic representation of Jewish thought and practice.”
Now you’re running away from your own argument. You were the one who acted as if whether or not we pray for the dead depends on which canon we espouse.
“I'm Orhtodox.”
Which explains the source of your many confusions.
“I think you just appealed to Jewish practice concerning the canon.”
i) I was answering you on your own grounds. Pay attention to your own argument.
ii) I’ve never taken the position that traditional practice is automatically reliable.
iii) On several occasions I’ve discussed what I regard as evidence for the canon and why. So spare me your ignorant little one-liners.
“There is a saint, whose name escapes me at the moment, who is known for praying for her departed (but unbelieving) son for 30 years or so. After this time she received word from God that she need pray no more, because he was saved.”
You have no way to verify the truth of that claim, or distinguish it from a séance.
“As I said before, nobody is damned yet.”
That’s what you say, but in mainstream Orthodox tradition, many of the dead are already damned.
“I can accept the contention that these prayers are for a peaceful life without assuming that only peace with rulers is needed for such peace.”
You continue to disregard the specific force of Paul’s specific rationale.
“But you haven't explained how you can defend the verses as both parallel and not parallel at the same time.”
The Pastorals are set against a judaistic heresy, according to which only Jews could be saved. “All” has reference to the fact that the Gospel is for Jews and Gentiles alike.
“In predicate logic, universal quantification formalizes the notion that something (a logical predicate) is true for everything, or every relevant thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification)__Err.. who is it that doesn't understand?”
You’re committing a classic semantic fallacy by failing to distinguish between sense and reference. The “meaning” of a universal quantifier doesn’t give you the referent. That has to be supplied by context.
Or do you think that “all” has reference to the salvation of rocks and trees and tapeworms and comets?
If fact, if you think that “all” denotes absolutely everything, then God desires his own salvation.
Who is it that doesn’t understand? That would be you.
“Well, you'd be out of step with everybody I know of.”
That’s not a serious way to argue for anything. And the fact that you’re Orthodox is hardly a representative sampling of Christianity in general.
“For example, the liturgy of Chrysostom says…”
The Greek Orthodox liturgy is not my rule of faith. You would need to make a case for why anyone who is not already Greek Orthodox should treat the liturgy of Chrysostom as authoritative.
“You don't seem to recognise that the whole reason we have universal quantifiers is to avoid referring to individuals. If we wanted to enumerate John, Bill and Mary, we wouldn't need the universal quantifier.”
You don’t seem to recognize that if you treat a universal quantifier as exhaustive, then you can’t draw a distinction between the totality and the individuals who comprise the totality.
“When I suggested you wanted to restrict the verse purely to rulers, you called me a liar. Pick a position and stick to it. Either Paul is talking exclusively about rulers, and thus v2 is purely about the power of rulers to bring us peace. Or else Paul is speaking more generally about all men, and how it is important for peace to be at peace with all. Which position do you actually want to stand with?”
i) You are attempting, simplemindedly, to reduce two Pauline arguments to one.
ii) And since I don’t construe “all men” in your illiterate, acontextual fashion, I don’t have to choose between one and the other—for they don’t generate a tension for my position.
iii) Once again, you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said that Paul limited prayers to prayers for rulers. But he uses that example in v2 with a specific rationale.
“We don't knowingly pray for the damned either.”
i) According to mainstream Orthodox theology, some of the dead are already damned. When you insist on praying for all rulers, living and dead, that would include damned rulers.
ii) And if, for the sake of argument, we say that, according to Orthodoxy, none of the dead is already damned, then that would just be one more Orthodox error: postmortem conversion.
“But we both do in fact pray for them. So what is your argument?”
Since I don’t pray for dead rulers, your question is predicated on a false premise.
“How have I supposedly departed?”
For reasons already given.
“Sure you have. But one hackneyed objection deserves a response in kind.”
I don’t have to repeat myself for your benefit just because you’re too lazy to acquaint yourself with the relevant literature. And this is an objection I’ve often dealt with. Check the archives.
“I never said anything about the means, unless you are saying that praying for the damned is the means for the salvation of the elect. How you would argue that I don't know.”
It’s difficult to reason with someone who’s as dim as you are. Try, once again, to keep track of your own pitiful argument. What did you say:
““Why do you pray for anyone at all since you believe God has predestined from the beginning of the world who will be saved, and thus anybody you pray for can only be useless if they will inevitably be saved, or against God if he has no intention of doing?”
i) That was an objection to Calvinism. Does a Calvinist knowingly pray for the damned? No. In fact, Calvinism has no tradition of praying for the dead, much less the damned.
ii) And you insinuated that predestination is irrespective of means. But prayer for the living is a means of grace. The salvation of the elect is not inevitable apart from various means which God has appointed. It’s inevitable because God had foreordained every step of the process.
“Ok, so are babies saved or damned, who never exercised saving faith? If you say some or all are, do you extend it to the mentally ill? Why not extend it to those who never heard the gospel? If you say sin, and original sin, then why except babies? Or do you except them? How do the mothers in your church like it if they lose a child and you preach that God may have decided they should be predestined to hell, but it's ok?”
i) To begin with, you disregard the context of my statement. Are babies atheists?
ii) Mothers don’t like it when they lose a hellbound grown child to illness or accident. Should we never preach on hell? After all, everyone is related to someone. Do you think that nobody’s loved one ever winds up in hell?
You denied being a universalist.
iii) Why do the Orthodox baptize babies? Does that confer a spiritual benefit on baptized babies that unbaptized babies lack?
"In other words, you don’t know what you’re talking about."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I'm mature enough to recognise that there are very limited historical records from this period. Many claims about this period are inferences rather hard facts.
“Their” services? “Standard” for whom? There are many different Jewish sects."
I'm pretty sure they are standard for all of them. We have manuscripts of these prayers from more than a millenium ago.
"Now you’re running away from your own argument. You were the one who acted as if whether or not we pray for the dead depends on which canon we espouse."
Try to read what I wrote, instead of twisting it and refabricating it. You stated that scripture doesn't teach it, and I said that whether you recognise that statement as truth depends on what canon you recognise. Nobody can argue with this.
"i) I was answering you on your own grounds. Pay attention to your own argument."
Wrong, I never challenged you to justify your canon, nor on any particular grounds. You decided to volunteer that argument.
"ii) I’ve never taken the position that traditional practice is automatically reliable."
Never? Ok then, I guess if the Jews supposedly used your canon, we shouldn't assume that traditional practice to be reliable. And you would NEVER claim otherwise, right?
"You have no way to verify the truth of that claim, or distinguish it from a séance."
Its recognition by the Church, and other similar things forms part of the Church's experience of God. I don't have to know if that particular story is 100% factual in order to recognise that the Church's recognition of it means that It recongises the scenario as plausible, and thus a legitimate part of the Church's experience of God. All of revelation ultimately comes down to what the people of God experienced from God.
"You continue to disregard the specific force of Paul’s specific rationale."
I showed why either way your interpretation has major problems. But you didn't show why I must think that only living in peace with Rulers leads to the desired life of peace, rather than living in peace with all men.
"The Pastorals are set against a judaistic heresy, according to which only Jews could be saved. “All” has reference to the fact that the Gospel is for Jews and Gentiles alike."
That's not an answer to my particular objection to your claim.
"You’re committing a classic semantic fallacy by failing to distinguish between sense and reference. The “meaning” of a universal quantifier doesn’t give you the referent. That has to be supplied by context.
Or do you think that “all” has reference to the salvation of rocks and trees and tapeworms and comets? "
Errr, we have a referent: "MEN". Last time I checked, tapeworms are not men. However the non-elect ARE men. If anyone is making a classic error, it is you in refusing to understand that the text gives a referrant, and there is no reason to be confused about its bounds.
"The Greek Orthodox liturgy is not my rule of faith. You would need to make a case for why anyone who is not already Greek Orthodox should treat the liturgy of Chrysostom as authoritative."
The point that you so conveniently miss, is that 2000 years of Christians can't see the supposed logical conundrum which you have fabricated to say that we are "praying for pronouns". Rather odd that nobody in 2000 years has taken a look at the Liturgy and said "Oh no, we're praying for pronouns! We must stop now!". Never heard of anyone walking into an Orthodox service and saying "Nope, cannot become Orthodox because they pray for pronouns".
"i) You are attempting, simplemindedly, to reduce two Pauline arguments to one. "
Wrong, I merely want you to be consistent about what you say about each argument.
"ii) And since I don’t construe “all men” in your illiterate, acontextual fashion, I don’t have to choose between one and the other—for they don’t generate a tension for my position."
Merely stating the claim doesn't show it. If Paul's point is for Christian's to live in peace AND if you don't want to limit it to purely rulers, then living in peace applies to all groups, not merely rulers.
"According to mainstream Orthodox theology, some of the dead are already damned."
Well, I did a quick Google search on
Orthodox "already damned", and the #1 hit:
http://ctlibrary.com/ch/1988/issue18/1819.html
has this quote:"Therefore, we do not say that any dead persons are already damned"
Now, if you want to make claims about Orthodox theology, it might help if make a rudimentary attempt to document it.
"And if, for the sake of argument, we say that, according to Orthodoxy, none of the dead is already damned, then that would just be one more Orthodox error: postmortem conversion."
So you claim. You're good at claiming things, I'll give you that.
"“But we both do in fact pray for them. So what is your argument?”
Since I don’t pray for dead rulers, your question is predicated on a false premise. "
Totally missing the point. You pray for people who are damned, even if unintentionally.
"Does a Calvinist knowingly pray for the damned? No."
Calvinists DO knowingly pray for the damned. They just don't know which is which: which prayers were for the damned and which were for the elect. Only if you had a rock solid knowledge of who the elect are could you claim you didn't know you were praying for the damned. Since you don't have such knowledge, you know full well that some of your prayers are for the damned.
" The salvation of the elect is not inevitable apart from various means which God has appointed."
And do you claim that God any more predestined your prayers as a means of saving the elect than that he predestined your prayers for the damned? Does he predestine the former, but the prayers for the damned you did outside of his decree? I doubt you believe that. In which case you believe God decreed you pray for the salvation of the damned. This doesn't make your position a happier one than mine.
"iii) Why do the Orthodox baptize babies? Does that confer a spiritual benefit on baptized babies that unbaptized babies lack?"
Yes!!
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“In other words, I'm mature enough to recognise that there are very limited historical records from this period. Many claims about this period are inferences rather hard facts.”
i) You make unsubstantiated assertions.
ii) What is more, you’re too dense to keep track of your own argument. You originally argued for prayers for the dead on the basis of the Jewish canon. If, however, you now deny that Jews had a “monolithic” view of the canon, then that undermines your original argument.
Thus far, all you’re proving is that you have to be illogical to be Orthodox.
“I'm pretty sure they are standard for all of them. We have manuscripts of these prayers from more than a millenium ago.”
Did I limit myself to ancient Jewish sects? No.
“Try to read what I wrote, instead of twisting it and refabricating it. You stated that scripture doesn't teach it, and I said that whether you recognise that statement as truth depends on what canon you recognise. Nobody can argue with this.”
To the contrary, you’re the one who’s backpedaling. You said it depended on which canon we use. I said I use the Jewish canon. You then began to equivocate.
I’m not responsible for your fuzz-brained grasp of the issues.
“Wrong, I never challenged you to justify your canon, nor on any particular grounds. You decided to volunteer that argument.”
I see you can’t remember anything someone told you 5 minutes ago. Have you made an appointment with the neurologist yet?
You were the one who introduced the issue of the canon. Everything I said in response to that was answering you on your own grounds.
“Never? Ok then, I guess if the Jews supposedly used your canon, we shouldn't assume that traditional practice to be reliable. And you would NEVER claim otherwise, right?”
It’s this kind of intellectual incompetence on your part that explains why you’re Orthodox.
The “Jewish canon” is a conventional designation, just like “New England” clam chowder and “Manhattan” clam chowder. That’s not an authoritative designation—just a way of distinguishing one thing from another—like the difference between the Protestant canon and the Catholic canon.
As usual, you have no grasp of how language functions.
Jewish testimonial evidence to the OT canon must still be sifted. And testimonial evidence is not the only salient line of evidence for the canon.
But I realize that’s much too complicated for your simple mind to grasp.
“Its recognition by the Church, and other similar things forms part of the Church's experience of God. I don't have to know if that particular story is 100% factual in order to recognise that the Church's recognition of it means that It recongises the scenario as plausible, and thus a legitimate part of the Church's experience of God. All of revelation ultimately comes down to what the people of God experienced from God.”
i) This begs the question in favor of the Orthodox church.
ii) And even if we granted your claim for the sake of argument, the alleged fact that things like that may happen doesn’t create the slightest presumption that a particular claim is true. At best, it’s a purely negative criterion, viz. that things like that can’t be ruled out in advance of the evidence. The specific claim remains completely unverifiable. Yet you used that as a supporting argument.
“I showed why either way your interpretation has major problems. But you didn't show why I must think that only living in peace with Rulers leads to the desired life of peace, rather than living in peace with all men.”
As usual, you can’t read a passage in context. In Paul’s argument, the ability to live in peace with one’s neighbor depends on imperial policy. Neighbors don’t set imperial policy, the Emperor does. If the imperial policy is to persecute Christians, then Christians won’t be left alone to live in peace with their neighbors.
“That's not an answer to my particular objection to your claim.”
It’s germane to v4.
“Errr, we have a referent: ‘MEN’. Last time I checked, tapeworms are not men. However the non-elect ARE men. If anyone is making a classic error, it is you in refusing to understand that the text gives a referrant, and there is no reason to be confused about its bounds.”
i) Now you’re backpedaling. You were the one who treated a universal quantifier as a synonym for “everything,” not me.
ii) Now you’re admitting that the object it takes restricts its scope.
iii) In Greek usage, anthropos frequently functions as an indefinite pronoun.
iv) The range of reference is determined by the flow of argument in this passage, as well as Paul’s general theology.
v) Since Paul is not a universalist, there’s plenty of reason to limit the force of his statement.
“The point that you so conveniently miss, is that 2000 years of Christians can't see the supposed logical conundrum which you have fabricated to say that we are ‘praying for pronouns’.”
Your appeal to popular opinion betrays the fact that you don’t have a real argument. And, of course, the folks you appeal to are just as hidebound and thoughtless as you are. It’s not as if the Orthodox tradition encourages the Orthodox to question Orthodox tradition.
“Merely stating the claim doesn't show it. If Paul's point is for Christian's to live in peace AND if you don't want to limit it to purely rulers, then living in peace applies to all groups, not merely rulers.”
As usual, you can’t follow Paul’s argument—which is not surprising since you can’t even follow your own arguments.
It’s the rulers who determine whether Christians will be able to live in peace with their neighbors.
“Now, if you want to make claims about Orthodox theology, it might help if make a rudimentary attempt to document it.”
Perry Robinson and I had an exchange a while back in which he indicated that David Lewis went to hell when he died. Do you think Perry Robinson lacks a rudimentary grasp of Orthodox theology? If so, feel free to argue your point with him.
“You pray for people who are damned, even if unintentionally.”
i) To begin with, one has to be dead to be damned. Calvinism has no tradition of prayers for the dead.
ii) And “unintentionally” won’t cut it. I’m the one who introduced the distinction between intentional and unintentional prayers for the damned and/or the hellbound. So you haven’t exposed any inconsistency in my own position.
There’s a fundamental difference between praying for things you know God will refuse, and praying for things you don’t know God will refuse.
“Calvinists DO knowingly pray for the damned. They just don't know which is which: which prayers were for the damned and which were for the elect. Only if you had a rock solid knowledge of who the elect are could you claim you didn't know you were praying for the damned. Since you don't have such knowledge, you know full well that some of your prayers are for the damned.”
This is just a repetition of your previous lame argument—to which I’ve responded.
“And do you claim that God any more predestined your prayers as a means of saving the elect than that he predestined your prayers for the damned? Does he predestine the former, but the prayers for the damned you did outside of his decree? I doubt you believe that. In which case you believe God decreed you pray for the salvation of the damned. This doesn't make your position a happier one than mine.”
Once again, you’re belaboring your fatal equivocations. Repeating and paraphrasing your fallacious objections does nothing to make them any better on the third or fourth hearing.
“Yes!!”
What spiritual benefit to baptized babies enjoy that unbaptized babies do not?
If it’s irrelevant to their state of grace, why bother? And if it is relevant, then what happens to unbaptized babies?
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Now, if you want to make claims about Orthodox theology, it might help if make a rudimentary attempt to document it.”
Beware of what you ask for:
“According to John Damascene, in this following a suggestion of the fourth-century bishop of Nemesius of Emesa, after death, the soul is unchangeably set in accordance with the fundamental orientation of its longing…a longing that has been refined and tested through life in the world. At the last judgment, this now-fixed orientation is recognized, and that is what is mean by judgment,” The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, 242.
"i) You make unsubstantiated assertions."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I should have documented all the historical sources which don't exist.
" You originally argued for prayers for the dead on the basis of the Jewish canon. "
No, I argued on the basis of Jewish practice. Must I really go back and quote myself, or can you handle that?
"Did I limit myself to ancient Jewish sects? No. "
So you're suggesting that somewhere there might be a modern Jewish sect that doesn't do the traditional prayers, and this would be a good argument for you? Have fun with that.
"You were the one who introduced the issue of the canon."
No, you introduced it by knowingly making a statement that only applies to your own canon, but not others'.
"It’s this kind of intellectual incompetence on your part that explains why you’re Orthodox.
The “Jewish canon” is a conventional designation, just like “New England” clam chowder and “Manhattan” clam chowder."
Does some ad-hominem and a lie pass for an argument around here? What you actually said was: "I use the same canon the Jews did."
That doesn't sound like you are merely making a conventional designation to me. Looks like you are now desperately back pedalling.
"i) This begs the question in favor of the Orthodox church."
No more or less than Jewish claims to be the people of God. Still, the concept is integral to the Judao Christian tradition.
"At best, it’s a purely negative criterion, viz. that things like that can’t be ruled out in advance of the evidence."
That's how Orthodoxy works. We are permitted to hope for things that are not ruled out. Recognition of the story of the saint by Orthodoxy proves that Orthodoxy doesn't rule it out. Just like you are permitted to pray for the salvation of Bill Jones because from the knowledge available to you, it is not ruled out.
"In Paul’s argument, the ability to live in peace with one’s neighbor depends on imperial policy."
That assumes that Paul mentioned authorities because of their power in this area, rather than that he mentioned them because they were an unpopular category of people to pray for. So your claim is not Paul's argument, it is what you are reading into his argument. It's a valid suggestion but hardly a settled fact.
"You were the one who treated a universal quantifier as a synonym for “everything,” not me."
No I didn't, that was just your fantasy.
"In Greek usage, anthropos frequently functions as an indefinite pronoun. "
It loses its indefiniteness when it is qualified with the universal qualifier.
"v) Since Paul is not a universalist, there’s plenty of reason to limit the force of his statement."
Only if you are already reading Calvinism and/or substitutionary atonement into the text.
"Your appeal to popular opinion betrays the fact that you don’t have a real argument."
When we are discussing language and what it means, popular opinion is the ultimate criterion. Words and grammar mean what they mean because of popular usage.
"And, of course, the folks you appeal to are just as hidebound and thoughtless as you are. "
John Chrysostom was thoughtless. Well that's a new one. Makes you look more like a Philistine than someone clever though.
"It’s the rulers who determine whether Christians will be able to live in peace with their neighbors."
So you claim, but in my opinion peace is dependant on all men, not just some. But you seem to have mentally blotted the "all men" from the text.
"Perry Robinson and I had an exchange a while back in which he indicated that David Lewis went to hell when he died. "
Perry is right. But hell is a place where the lost wait in dreadful anticipation of judgement day. One is not damned until God has judged. So I have no need to argue with him.
"i) To begin with, one has to be dead to be damned."
Well... why? In my theology damnation waits for God's judgement. But in your theology God decreed before the foundation of the world. All his decisions are in the past tense. To say someone is not damned when they are already in sin, and God has already decided on their damnation, sounds like a word game to me.
"I’m the one who introduced the distinction between intentional and unintentional prayers for the damned and/or the hellbound. So you haven’t exposed any inconsistency in my own position."
It's inconsistent if you want to claim something wrong with my position when you also unintentionally pray for the damned. Of course, in my theology they aren't really damned, whereas in yours they really are, despite your protestations.
"There’s a fundamental difference between praying for things you know God will refuse, and praying for things you don’t know God will refuse."
But we don't actually know for sure God will refuse it. In fact, I think it is permissible in Orthodoxy to hope for the salvation of all. It would be heresy to expect it, but to hope for it is permissible. I think you might find that in Timothy Ware's book, but I'm not going to look it up now.
"What spiritual benefit to baptized babies enjoy that unbaptized babies do not?"
Blessings from the Holy Spirit.
"If it’s irrelevant to their state of grace, why bother? And if it is relevant, then what happens to unbaptized babies?"
Baptised babies are part of God's normative plan for salvation, and we have a strong expectation they will be in heaven. Unbaptised babies are outside God's normative plan for salvation and thus we mentally place them in God's hands, but outside our knowledge of what God has revealed. In other words, we know about what God has revealed, and we don't comment on what he hasn't.
"Beware of what you ask for:
“According to John Damascene, in this following a suggestion of the fourth-century bishop of Nemesius of Emesa, after death, the soul is unchangeably set in accordance with the fundamental orientation of its longing…a longing that has been refined and tested through life in the world. At the last judgment, this now-fixed orientation is recognized, and that is what is mean by judgment,”
That doesn't mean there aren't people in hell who, possibly through no fault of their own didn't die in a state of grace, and who might possibly be released. Whether they are released in accordance with what they would have done had they had the opportunity... what you might call their "now fixed orientation", well it sounds reasonable to me. I don't feel inclined to disagree with either John Damascene, nor conventional Orthodox thinking that it could be possible God could release people from hell. There is no incompatibility.
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Sorry, I should have documented all the historical sources which don't exist.”
Your assertion of their nonexistence begs the question. That’s precisely one of the claims you need to document. If you’re going to make sweeping claims about the Jewish canon, you need to document the available sources of information.
I’m not going to waste any more time on a commenter who refuses to substantiate his claims. I’m not here to entertain you.
“No, I argued on the basis of Jewish practice. Must I really go back and quote myself, or can you handle that?”
No, you appealed to the canon. Since the Protestant canon of the NT is the same as the Orthodox canon of the NT, the only canon which would be pertinent to your claim is the OT canon.
As usual, you can’t keep track of your own pathetic little argument.
“So you're suggesting that somewhere there might be a modern Jewish sect that doesn't do the traditional prayers, and this would be a good argument for you? Have fun with that.”
You’re the one who made a claim about Jewish practice, not me. You shoulder the burden of proof.
There are scholarly sources that discuss Jewish views of the afterlife, such as Bauckham’s monograph on The Fate of the Dead: Studies On the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses.
That won’t be very helpful to you, however. This is late, apocryphal material. Most of it emphasizes the finality of one’s eternal fate at the time of death. The few exceptions are anomalous even by the already anomalous standards of the Jewish and Christian pseudepigrapha. There’s a reason none of this stuff was never canonized in the first place, in either Judaism or Christianity.
“No, you introduced it by knowingly making a statement that only applies to your own canon, but not others'.”
The only canonical attempt you made to establish your position on postmortem salvation was with reference to your misinterpretation of 1 Peter. That’s a book of the Protestant canon as well as the Orthodox canon.
You remain as incompetent as ever.
“Does some ad-hominem and a lie pass for an argument around here? What you actually said was: ‘I use the same canon the Jews did’__That doesn't sound like you are merely making a conventional designation to me. Looks like you are now desperately back pedalling.”
“Looks to you” or “sounds like” is not an argument? Where’s the supporting argument?
Since I’ve laid out my evidence for the OT many times in the past, you will be unable to document any backpedaling on my part. My stated lines of evidence antedate my exchange with you, and nothing I’ve said in my exchange with you alters the argumentation I’ve employed in the past. I never limited myself to Jewish tradition. And I never treated Jewish tradition as unquestionable.
“No more or less than Jewish claims to be the people of God.”
In reference to what? OT and NT claims regarding the status of the Jewish people?
Again, I’ve often argued for the inspiration of Scripture. You’ve presented no comparable argument for the Orthodox church.
“Still, the concept is integral to the Judao Christian tradition.”
What concept would that be? Postmortem salvation? That’s hardly integral to the Judeo-Christian tradition, even if we accept your high church presuppositions.
At most, there’s an unscriptural tradition of Purgatory. And that’s not equivalent to postmortem salvation.
“That's how Orthodoxy works. We are permitted to hope for things that are not ruled out.”
You’re backtracking from your original claim. You originally tried to prove the efficacy of prayers for the dead by citing the claim of a mother who said God told her she didn’t have to pray for her deceased son anymore because God had heard her prayers. Now you’ve had to back down to the extremely weak claim that you’re permitted to hope for things as long as they haven’t been ruled out.
Bare possibilities are not a rational basis for believing that a particular event ever took place. It’s possible that Obama will die in a freak accident before he’s inaugurated. That’s not a good reason for supposing it will happen.
Your Orthodox faith is a tissue of wishful thinking and make-believe.
“That assumes that Paul mentioned authorities because of their power in this area, rather than that he mentioned them because they were an unpopular category of people to pray for. So your claim is not Paul's argument, it is what you are reading into his argument. It's a valid suggestion but hardly a settled fact.”
No, your alternative interpretation severs the logical connection between 2a and 2b, where 2b functions as a purpose-clause. The purpose of prayer for pagan authorities is to dispose them favorably to the church. That’s the Pauline argument in 2:2.
“No I didn't, that was just your fantasy.”
I’m not going to waste time repeating your pwm words back to you. You were one who quoted the Wikipedia article on universal quantification with the meaning of “everything.”
You make no attempt to debate in good faith. You repeatedly deny your own statements.
“It loses its indefiniteness when it is qualified with the universal qualifier.”
That begs the question of how a universal quantifier functions. If we applied your mishandling of the universal quantifier to Rom 5:18 or 1 Tim 4:10, it would entail universal salvation, which you say you deny.
You have a bad habit of picking out isolated words while disregarding the flow of the argument. What the words mean is, in part, a function of their contribution to the overall argument.
“Only if you are already reading Calvinism and/or substitutionary atonement into the text.”
i) Substitutionary atonement is a Pauline doctrine.
ii) And, as I just observed, the same delimitations must be applied to other passages like Rom 5:18 and 1 Tim 4:10—to avoid contradicting his doctrine of postmortem judgment.
“When we are discussing language and what it means, popular opinion is the ultimate criterion. Words and grammar mean what they mean because of popular usage.”
i) This is another example of your inability to distinguish between sense and reference.
ii) And I’d add that popular usage is often quite careless and imprecise.
“John Chrysostom was thoughtless. Well that's a new one. Makes you look more like a Philistine than someone clever though.”
Nice bait-and-switch. You did more than appeal to Chrysostom. You tendentiously appealed to 2000 years of Christians, as well as converts to Orthodoxy. So you attempted a common man appeal. You appealed to the “Philistines” as well as the Bohemians.
Now, however, you deliberately misrepresent your own argument. You’re too dishonest to accurately state your original argument. Instead, you’re trying to score a rhetorical point, at the expense of what you original said.
Why should I waste any more of my time debating a sophist and demagogue like yourself?
“So you claim, but in my opinion peace is dependant on all men, not just some. But you seem to have mentally blotted the ‘all men’ from the text.”
i) Which text? V2? No. You’re not prepared to deal with each verse on its own terms because that doesn’t serve your preconceived agenda.
ii) And I don’t have a problem with “all men” since I don’t share your misinterpretation of v4 either.
“Perry is right. But hell is a place where the lost wait in dreadful anticipation of judgement day. One is not damned until God has judged. So I have no need to argue with him.”
Now you’re prevaricating. If their fate is a foregone conclusion, then they are damned. The final judgment formally publicly ratifies their preexisting fate. It doesn’t alter the outcome. In which case, praying for them is futile.
“Well... why? In my theology damnation waits for God's judgement. But in your theology God decreed before the foundation of the world. All his decisions are in the past tense. To say someone is not damned when they are already in sin, and God has already decided on their damnation, sounds like a word game to me.”
i) Actually, God’s decisions are timeless rather than past tense.
ii) You’re confusing damnation with predamnation. Damnation is an event in time.
iii) In standard usage, “the damned” denotes the lost souls in hades or hell.
“It's inconsistent if you want to claim something wrong with my position when you also unintentionally pray for the damned.”
No inconsistency since I didn’t accuse you of unintentionally praying for the damned but rather, of intentionally praying for the damned.
“But we don't actually know for sure God will refuse it. In fact, I think it is permissible in Orthodoxy to hope for the salvation of all. It would be heresy to expect it, but to hope for it is permissible. I think you might find that in Timothy Ware's book, but I'm not going to look it up now.”
I’ve quoted Ware’s statement in the past. But you deny being a universalist.
And Perry Robinson took umbrage at my quote. He regards Ware as unreliable on this issue.
“Blessings from the Holy Spirit.”
You’re being evasive, which is another mark of your dishonesty. Which blessings?
“Baptised babies are part of God's normative plan for salvation, and we have a strong expectation they will be in heaven. Unbaptised babies are outside God's normative plan for salvation and thus we mentally place them in God's hands, but outside our knowledge of what God has revealed. In other words, we know about what God has revealed, and we don't comment on what he hasn't.”
In other words, you make allowance for the possible damnation of some babies. I had to beat that concession out of you.
Yet that didn’t prevent you from attacking my position by alleging that I believe in infant damnation. Yet another evidence of your mendacity.
“That doesn't mean there aren't people in hell who, possibly through no fault of their own didn't die in a state of grace, and who might possibly be released. Whether they are released in accordance with what they would have done had they had the opportunity... what you might call their ‘now fixed orientation’, well it sounds reasonable to me. I don't feel inclined to disagree with either John Damascene, nor conventional Orthodox thinking that it could be possible God could release people from hell. There is no incompatibility.”
i) To the contrary, that’s incompatible with Damascene’s contention that their fate is sealed at death. The final judgment doesn’t change their fate. According to Damascene, their “fixed orientation” has reference to the way in which death finalizes the outcome, for good or ill.
ii) And you’re now attempting to distinguish between the damned and those in hell. So you now admit that you knowingly pray for souls in hell. Once again, I had to force that admission from your lips. You’re too dishonest to volunteer damaging information about your true position.
However, it’s useful for all to see what your misinterpretation of 1 Tim 2:4 commits you to. Nice to see an error taken to its logical extreme.
I don’t have time for your dissimulation. You’re a dishonorable spokesman for the theological tradition you presume to represent. Don’t come back unless and until you can debate in good faith.