Pages

Friday, September 17, 2010

Pray for all men

1First 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. 3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:1-5).

Traditionally, Calvinists interpret v5 as denoting all kinds of men. Calvinists justify that interpretation by interpreting v5 in light of vv1-2, where they say the prayer for all men denotes all the different kinds of men, viz. representatives from different social classes.

Arminians regard this interpretation as a subterfuge. To construe v5 that way violates the “plain sense” of the passage, and illustrates the desperate lengths to which the Calvinist will go to salvage his unscriptural belief-system.

For now I’m not going to assess the merits of the traditional Reformed interpretation. Instead, I wish to briefly explore the Arminian alternative.

If prayer for all men doesn’t mean prayer for all kinds of men, then what does it mean? How does Timothy pray for all men, exactly? And what, exactly, does he pray for? Likewise, how does a modern Arminian pray for all men? And what, exactly, does he pray for?

i) On the Arminian interpretation, if prayer for all men doesn’t mean prayer for representative sample groups, then, presumably, the Arminian alternative means that we (or Timothy) pray for every individual.

ii) Suppose Timothy prays for two minutes. How does he pray for every individual in the course of his 2-minute prayer? To begin with, some people are born (or conceived) every minute while other people die every minute (and pass onto to heaven or hell).

So Timothy can’t pray for the same individuals in the course of his 2-minute prayer, can he? Every individual he prays for at the outset of his prayer doesn’t belong to the same set of individuals as every individual he is still praying for at the conclusion of his prayer. For in the duration of his 2-minute prayer, there has already been some turnover in the overall referents. He ends with a slightly different set of referents than he began with.

And, of course, modernity exacerbates the fluidity of the intended referent, for the rate of turnover is even higher in the 21C than it was in the 1C.

iii) How does Timothy pray for every individual when he doesn’t even know how many individual human beings exist at the time he received Paul’s letter? How does he pray for individuals in Alaska or Hawaii or other corners of the globe when he doesn’t even know that there are people living in Alaska or Hawaii? How can he pray for individual Hawaiians if he doesn’t know that Hawaii exists?

And even in modern times, estimating the population of the world at any given time is just an educated guess, not an exact figure by any means. How can we pray for every individual when we don’t even have a net figure? How can we pray for every individual if we don’t know how many individuals we are praying for? In what sense is that an individualized prayer?

iv) If Timothy prays for every individual, what does he prayer for? Does each human being have the same needs? Is there one generic prayer that we should pray for everyone? And, if so, what would that be?

Should we pray that God saves everyone? If so, is that a sincere, meaningful prayer?

Should we pray that God saves St. Paul? But don’t we have good reason to think that’s a done deal by now? Hasn’t God already saved St. Paul? Isn’t St. Paul safely in heaven by now?

Conversely, we know that God doesn’t save everyone. So isn’t it hypocritical to ask God to do something even though we know that God has no intention of answering our prayer?

Or, suppose, for the sake of argument, that God will save everyone sooner or later. But even if universalism were true, or especially if universalism were true, then someone’s salvation can’t very well depend on whether or not I pray for him. If I didn’t pray for him, would he be damned? But if, ad arguendo, God will save everyone, then that can’t be contingent on my prayer, can it? To the extent that it were contingent on somebody’s prayer, there would have to be a backup system in case I fail to pray for that individual. Another supplicant must take up the slack.

But if we’re not to pray for everyone’s salvation, then what are we to pray for–assuming that we’re obligated to pray for every individual? What exactly, and I do mean “exactly,” is the content of that prayer?

Or is the Arminian contention that while we ought to pray for every individual, we don’t pray for the same thing in each case? Very well, then. But if we don’t know each and every individual, then how can we pray for different things for different men, women, children? How can our prayers differentiate between different individuals? How can we know what’s suitable for anonymous individuals?

v) Or does this mean that we pray certain types of prayers, which automatically apply to whatever individuals happen to fit the terms of the prayer?

But if that’s what it really amounts to, then isn’t that equivalent to praying for different kinds of individuals? Different types of prayer whose typical content corresponds to different types of individuals? Individuals in roughly those circumstances?

If so, how does that distinguish the Arminian interpretation from the Reformed interpretation? Isn’t that praying for different kinds of people–according to the general nature of their particular situation? Where the sort of situation self-selects for the sort of individual in question?

vi) I’ve been discussing v1 rather than v5, but since the meaning of v1 is a premise for the traditional Reformed interpretation of v5, and since Arminians attack that premise, that is what I’ve chosen to focus on.

10 comments:

  1. RE: "Should we pray that God saves everyone? If so, is that a sincere, meaningful prayer? "

    The Arminian would no doubt sternly rebuke Jesus for His prayer in John 17 ("20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.[ESV]), eh?

    Only praying for the disciples and those who would believe through their word? And, describing that particular group as "all" in v. 21? How dare He....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some very good words. Good thoughts. It's a deep passage for me; thanks for digging it out a bit.

    " So isn’t it hypocritical to ask God to do something even though we know that God has no intention of answering our prayer?"

    No. We can pray "Lord I do ask that you would have mercy on all humans. For I am no different than they; and even way worse than most."

    God could indeed save all people right now if He so desired, I would guess.Nothing is impossible for God.
    In my mind I can not see it, but God is God.

    And yet, I can also pray, "Thank You Lord for saving my sinful soul, and redeeeming me for Yourself. For I deserve Your condemnation and wrath, as so many will have to endure. Yet I know You take no pleasure in this Lord, and it grieves You."

    That's my heart. May the Lord continue to mould with His tender and powerful hands.

    Have a terrific Lord's day.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,

    These two statements seem to be in conflict:

    THIS:

    “Traditionally, Calvinists interpret v5 as denoting all kinds of men. Calvinists justify that interpretation by interpreting v5 in light of vv1-2, where they say the prayer for all men denotes all the different kinds of men, viz. representatives from different social classes.”

    VS THIS:

    “v) Or does this mean that we pray certain types of prayers, which automatically apply to whatever individuals happen to fit the terms of the prayer?

    But if that’s what it really amounts to, then isn’t that equivalent to praying for different kinds of individuals? Different types of prayer whose typical content corresponds to different types of individuals? Individuals in roughly those circumstances?

    If so, how does that distinguish the Arminian interpretation from the Reformed interpretation? Isn’t that praying for different kinds of people–according to the general nature of their particular situation? Where the sort of situation self-selects for the sort of individual in question?”


    Is it whatever individuals are in the category or just some representative individuals in the category?

    How does Timothy pray for every individual when he doesn’t even know how many individual human beings exist at the time he received Paul’s letter?

    That’s the beauty of the distributive “all”. Just pray for all men and everyone is covered individually whether you know them or not.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  4. GODISMYJUDGE SAID:

    "That’s the beauty of the distributive 'all'. Just pray for all men and everyone is covered individually whether you know them or not."

    That's the beauty of Dan Chapa equivocating over the studied ambiguities of anonymous prayer–even though I spelled that out in this very post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A few points to bear in mind:

    1) Prayer for 'all people' does not have to be individual specific. One can pray general prayers such as 'Lord, I pray that you bless all the people in far off nations with the gift of repentance' that cover 'all people'.

    2) I'm not sure that the text instructs Timothy to individually fulfill this command single-handedly. It seems to be addressed collectively so as to be fulfilled by the whole Church, just like the Great Commission.

    3) I'm not sure the import of the verse is that the congregants all need to accomplish this task of praying for every single person in the world when they meet, but rather the emphasis may be that no people are to be thought of as off-limits or outside the bounds of potential prayer, since we do not know who the elect are.

    Just my 2 cents...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Also, there is a difference between all people and all peoples.

    The former does not exclude anyone, the latter may do.

    Also, since 'all who are in high positions' in vs 2 is most probably modified by the context which would suggest 'all who are in high positions in your region/area of knowledge' the same may be true of 'all people' - that is, 'all people in your region/area of knowledge'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Godismyjudge said...

    "Is it whatever individuals are in the category or just some representative individuals in the category?"

    In context, Paul is presumably alluding to rulers in the Roman Empire–not Nebuchadnezzar orThutmose III.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I prefer to argue Paul is talking about "all men [without distinction]" rather than "all [kinds of] men." While the meaning is the same, it more smoothly suits the analogical rebuttal: the Arminian assumes "all men" necessarily means "all men [without exception]."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ryan,

    You could be right about that. I'm not plugging the "all kinds" interpretation in this text–just using that as a foil to explore and expose the ramifications of the Arminian alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  10. How about this spin then?

    Paul, having been fully briefed about just how nasty James was treated before death and how they were scheming to treat Peter before being delivered by the prayer sent Angel coupled with being mindful of his own earlier experiences he experienced with Christ as he was moving quickly towards Damascus and then found himself forcefully laying prone in dung and urine mixed dirt listening to the most Holy and Pure Words ever uttered in Hebrew and not Aramiac, "hey dude, what's up? Why you be treating Me this way??"

    Who says prayer has to be one sided anyway?

    It seems Paul understood human nature was such that for them to live peaceful quiet lives in Godliness they were going to have to learn from Timothy, who was learning from Paul, to pray for all men appointed to govern their civil affairs while they sojourned through life under their jurisdiction, whether or not they were temporarily lodging there for a rest with the brethren or settled down to be the Church under said jurisdiction to raise their families, do their professions and trades and be specific witnesses locally as was to be done in all nations so the Holy Spirit could use their words locally too, just as the Holy Spirit used them, converted to Christ as Messiah, Jews whose words were used to reflect Jesus as Jesus reflects in His most High and Holy prayers to Our Father, recorded at John 17?

    I can tell you from experience and our oral history as it was past down to my generation from our elders of those rebel savages forcefully gathered to the Reservations that our prophets were not praying to God but to some demon or demons for peace thinking them to be the Great Creator/s! If it was God they were talking to, He certainly would have left us with peaceful and quiet neighborhoods instead of the radical evil and viciously cursed full environments most Indian reservations have become today because very few Christians are praying for the welfare of the Saints who live on these reservations!

    Shall we pray and be prayed up before stepping foot on that reserved dirt and land to bear glad tidings of great Joy for all peoples?

    Knowing firsthand what I know about my Reservation's neighborhoods, I would not encourage any evangelism by stepping foot there without being fully prayed up first! :)

    1Ti 2:8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

    ReplyDelete