1 Timothy 4:10

[robbyyoung]

Hello All and God Bless,

"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

There's been much debate over UR and it's timing/locale for those void of salvation during this life. Is Timothy merely stating a fact that there is no other Savior to call upon, or does the context denote, God will in-fact save all people?

I note the distinction, "especially of those who believe.", in that these individuals, in this life and the next, receive the promises of the value of godliness. However, all receive a ticket but only those who believe get the added value.

Your thoughts.

[dizerner]

μάλιστα (2Pe 2:10 NA28) has the fairly broad meaning of "especially" but in this instance is actually better translated "specifically" from the context. We get this format in Scripture a lot, Christ died for all, those who believe are saved. The all part here and elsewhere is showing the power of the potentiality of unlimited atonement. As an Arminian I believe Christ's death has the value and payment to save all men, but that value is not applied without a response to grace, so it's not automatic as Calvinists would have you believe. So Paul first speaks of the potential power of the atonement, than naturally clarifies the group that actually does benefit from it. It is as if I said, "I gave a free BBQ to my whole neighborhood, that is, those who showed up."

[steve7150]

I note the distinction, "especially of those who believe.", in that these individuals, in this life and the next, receive the promises of the value of godliness. However, all receive a ticket but only those who believe get the added value.







The translators in the various traditional bibles were not Universalists but they translate into the english word "especially" which sounds very differently then "specifically." One is inclusive and the other is exclusive, very different meanings.
Paul made many statements that sound like UR but i'm not a Calvinist and neither is Paul so he may be a hopeful Universalist. To me "judgment" in the greek can allow for reconciliation through this judgment "krisis" and "krino" therefore this would allow salvation after death and that would make UR possible.

I believe the folks who inherit the kingdom in this life however will have a benefit in God's plan somehow. They will be the little flock.

[robbyyoung]

μάλιστα (2Pe 2:10 NA28) has the fairly broad meaning of "especially" but in this instance is actually better translated "specifically" from the context.

Hi dizerner,

I'm sorry but how do you derive "malista" meaning "specifically"? The greek says the following:

adverb > Root Word (Etymology) > primary adverb mala (very)

1. especially, chiefly, most of all, above all

Therefore, where is this "broad meaning"? If I'm off base here, please correct my understanding of the greek lexicon interpretation.

Paul's reference here could be analogous of the following:

a. 10 people are told God is your Savior.
b. At this point, it really doesn't matter if they believe it or not. It's a statement of fact.
c. 6 people believe and therefore especially enjoy God's salvation in this life and the next (vs.8).
d. 4 people remain in unbelief, yet God is still their Savior - in this life and (possibly) the next. "The Possibility" is where the UR debate rest.

God Bless.

[dizerner]

I absolutely do not think Paul meant universalism from this ambiguous text. To base such an important doctrine as the salvation of men, on something that could be taken both ways, is unwarranted. It is very, very, very obvious that Paul did not teach elsewhere that all men are saved.

Even if we were to take the meaning "especially" which I agree is the main use of the word, is it an incorrect statement to say God is the Savior of all men, if he does not save all men? I believe it can be stated that way, without implying that all men take advantage of that salvation. Because I can walk up to an unbeliever and say "Jesus is your Savior, will accept him?" Jesus is the person's Savior, but potentially, not actually.

The key issue is, can someone be my Savior and I still reject that salvation? If someone throws me a lifeline while I'm drowning they are my savior, even if I refuse to grab it and drown, because they did the part necessary from their end for my salvation. So it doesn't necessarily logically force the conclusion that it's "irresistible grace," as the Calvinists would have it.

Do I believe people burning in hell can say "Jesus was my Savior"? I absolutely do, because he's a Savior they reject and refuse. After all, I believe God died for the whole world. Jesus died for my sins, but the question is whether I will be born again and found "in Him" by faith. If I reject that faith, Scripture says I will not be found in him, but in Adam.

[robbyyoung]

I absolutely do not think Paul meant universalism from this ambiguous text. To base such an important doctrine as the salvation of men, on something that could be taken both ways, is unwarranted. It is very, very, very obvious that Paul did not teach elsewhere that all men are saved.

Not trying to be altogether disagreeable, however, I think it's necessary to speak to some of what you said. The issue at hand isn't Paul teaching that "all men are saved", but rather, will all men be saved. I believe you're blurring these very two differences together. Clearly Paul, didn't preach or teach to his contemporaries that all men are currently saved. However, passages that could possibly speak to the future restoration of mankind would be extremely warranted, since we are not discussing a position that, currently all men are saved. Therefore, it most definitely would matter if only one or two statements were made in the entire biblical record regarding the possibility of UR.

Even if we were to take the meaning "especially" which I agree is the main use of the word, is it an incorrect statement to say God is the Savior of all men, if he does not save all men?

It depends on what you are being saved from. 1st Century Believers were being saved from God's Wrath being poured out on the land of Judea. Their salvation was centered around this and the parousia, keeping themselves from having their names blotted out of The Book of Life, while living in this life. So clearly God DID NOT save all men. The next life conflates with "The Book of Life", we know you can be blotted out, but the question is - can you be placed back in "The Book of Life"? If so, then indeed God is still the Savior of all men.

Do I believe people burning in hell can say "Jesus was my Savior"? I absolutely do, because he's a Savior they reject and refuse. After all, I believe God died for the whole world. Jesus died for my sins, but the question is whether I will be born again and found "in Him" by faith. If I reject that faith, Scripture says I will not be found in him, but in Adam.

No, the question isn't about this life. Does scripture allude to the possibility of those not found in The Book of Life, to be reinstated in the next life?

I do understand your position that 1 Tim 4:10 is too ambiguous to make the UR claim and I thank you for your response. I'm still undecided on the UR position, it's thought provoking but it needs more scriptural support.

God Bless.

[steve7150]

I do understand your position that 1 Tim 4:10 is too ambiguous to make the UR claim and I thank you for your response. I'm still undecided on the UR position, it's thought provoking but it needs more scriptural support.








This verse alone can not make a claim for UR but when added together with a surprising amount of other verses and studying the greek words for "judgment" ,
a possibility does exist IMHO.
The key IMO is studying the definitions for the greek words for judgemt (krisis and krino) and adding the possibilities with the UR sounding verses and you can see a possible pathway. Even if UR is not the finale i think the great majority will eventually be saved.
Jesus was called "The Savior of the World" in a different verse , that was his title, not his potential title.

[robbyyoung]

I do understand your position that 1 Tim 4:10 is too ambiguous to make the UR claim and I thank you for your response. I'm still undecided on the UR position, it's thought provoking but it needs more scriptural support.








This verse alone can not make a claim for UR but when added together with a surprising amount of other verses and studying the greek words for "judgment" ,
a possibility does exist IMHO.
The key IMO is studying the definitions for the greek words for judgemt (krisis and krino) and adding the possibilities with the UR sounding verses and you can see a possible pathway. Even if UR is not the finale i think the great majority will eventually be saved.
Jesus was called "The Savior of the World" in a different verse , that was his title, not his potential title.

Hi steve7150,

I'm aware of the total UR argument, however, I was more interested in this specific passage used in the UR's case. Is Paul in this passage stating God is potentially the Savior of all men or IS the Savior of all men, in which future restoration in the next life is tenable, for those blotted out of The Book of Life?

Can this passage stand on it's own for UR or not? I think it's a stretch, but could be noteworthy when conflated with other supporting passages to the claim.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

The key issue is, can someone be my Savior and I still reject that salvation? If someone throws me a lifeline while I'm drowning they are my savior, even if I refuse to grab it and drown, because they did the part necessary from their end for my salvation. So it doesn't necessarily logically force the conclusion that it's "irresistible grace," as the Calvinists would have it

.

Indeed, this is the key issue. But Christian reconciliationists such as myself, do not affirm that anyone who rejects Messiah and his salvation will be automatically accepted by God. Rather this is the position of groups such as the Unitarian-Universalist Association. Our position is that eventually all people will, of their own free will, choose to submit to Messiah, coming under His authority. This is the sense in which He is "the Saviour of all men."

"Especially of those who believe" indicates that believers share in the benefits of salvation NOW and postmortem will not need to undergo the severe correction that those who reject Him will need to undergo.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

Indeed, this is the key issue. But Christian reconciliationists such as myself, do not affirm that anyone who rejects Messiah and his salvation will be automatically accepted by God. Rather this is the position of groups such as the Unitarian-Universalist Association. Our position is that eventually all people will, of their own free will, choose to submit to Messiah, coming under His authority. This is the sense in which He is "the Saviour of all men."

But would you not say that being saved includes the escape from "the wrath to come"? And one of the calling cards of those describing themselves as "Evangelical Universalists" is their understanding that God's love requires that all will eventually be saved. But it would seem the Unitarian-Universalist far exceeds the EU in the sentimental view of God. Earlier in Timothy 2:3-5 Paul informs us of God's desire to see all men saved and has already provided the ransom to save them. Then why wouldn't He regenerate them now, as in Calvinism, and save them all now. It seems plausible that He could if He so desired. Why is hell necessary at all?

"Especially of those who believe" indicates that believers share in the benefits of salvation NOW and postmortem will not need to undergo the severe correction that those who reject Him will need to undergo.

If I were a Universalist making my argument from 1 Timothy 4:10 I would say that the "especially those that believe" refers to their not having to go through the experience of hell that the rest of mankind, who will all be saved, are forced to go through. But I won't make that argument. IMHO Dizerner is correct in that the Greek malista, translated "specially" in 1 Tim. 4:10 can mean "above all" which is synonomous with "in particular", as he pointed out. So 1 Timothy 4:10 is of little help for universalism.