Proveing Universal Salvation the easy way!

[Seth]

I've spoken to Calvinists who have admitted that their are problems with their doctrine especially of "limited salvation" and have been in conversations where a Calvinist simply stopped addressing my questions because the proofs that Christ died for each and every individual were overwhelming. He simply stopped addressing it and started focusing on other people in the thread. I was like "hello?" No more answers.

[legoman]

On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle".  The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas".  Then they quote this verse:

1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4.  The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all".  But it does make the issue more difficult.

It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".

Comments?

Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.

Therefore, if all are dead, and Christ died for all the dead, that means God sent Christ to die for ALL men, and that means God wants all men saved....unless the Calvinist wants to admit that not all men were dead in which case they have a major problem with their own depravity doctrine.

Good answer.  Thats what I tend to believe, "all" is not limited unless context demands it.  But then of course anyone can play the context card:  "See 1 Tim 2 is only talking about Kings - that is a kind of person, therefore its all kinds BLAH BLAH BLAH".

So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:

Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?

I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example).  This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?

[Seth]

On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle".  The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas".  Then they quote this verse:

1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4.  The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all".  But it does make the issue more difficult.

It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".

Comments?

Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.

Therefore, if all are dead, and Christ died for all the dead, that means God sent Christ to die for ALL men, and that means God wants all men saved....unless the Calvinist wants to admit that not all men were dead in which case they have a major problem with their own depravity doctrine.

Good answer.  Thats what I tend to believe, "all" is not limited unless context demands it.  But then of course anyone can play the context card:  "See 1 Tim 2 is only talking about Kings - that is a kind of person, therefore its all kinds BLAH BLAH BLAH".

So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:

Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?

I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example).  This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?

Well I simply tell them that Pas is defaulted to universal all unless context limits it.

So if I get the Timothy is only talking about Kings, then I bring up the point that if Timothy says we should only be praying for kings, then that means they are disobeying scripture by praying for anyone BUT kings, including your own children...or how about an unbelieving friend?

I would ask: if Paul is not saying we should pray for all men universally, then why pray for anyone at all? Kings need prayer, but our friends and family do not? It would mean that God only wants all KINGS to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth. What about Vlad the Impaler? He was a king. Does that mean that Vlad will be saved? If not, why not? Contextually the same people we are to pray for are the ones that God wants to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth.

If that is so, then does that mean all Calvinists were former kings?

That pretty much squashes the idea that Paul is saying we should only pray for kings and not all men especially since Christ died for all men who were dead, which is the universal all according to their own doctrine.

[WhiteWings]

So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:

Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?

I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example).  This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?

Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)

[legoman]

So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:

Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?

I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example).  This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?

Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)

Sure, but how about cheating on your wife with your best friends wife.  (no money)

[legoman]

On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle".  The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas".  Then they quote this verse:

1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4.  The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all".  But it does make the issue more difficult.

It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".

Comments?

Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.

Therefore, if all are dead, and Christ died for all the dead, that means God sent Christ to die for ALL men, and that means God wants all men saved....unless the Calvinist wants to admit that not all men were dead in which case they have a major problem with their own depravity doctrine.

Good answer.  Thats what I tend to believe, "all" is not limited unless context demands it.  But then of course anyone can play the context card:  "See 1 Tim 2 is only talking about Kings - that is a kind of person, therefore its all kinds BLAH BLAH BLAH".

So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:

Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?

I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example).  This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?

Well I simply tell them that Pas is defaulted to universal all unless context limits it.

So if I get the Timothy is only talking about Kings, then I bring up the point that if Timothy says we should only be praying for kings, then that means they are disobeying scripture by praying for anyone BUT kings, including your own children.

That pretty much squashes the idea that Paul is saying we should only pray for kings and not all men especially since Christ died for all men who were dead, which is the universal all according to their own doctrine.

Yes good point, although some will just say we shouldn't pray for all men. 

I find a good proof that God loves all is that God tells us to love our enemies so we will be perfect like Him.  You will get all sorts of squirming when you bring that up like "God doesn't have to do what He tells us to do" or "We are only supposed to love elect enemies" (bizarre I know). 

Both of these objections lead to contradictions - when we get to heaven, are we supposed to love our enemies (because God told us to), or are we supposed to rejoice that God has thrown our enemies in hell (because it is for His glory)?  Bizarre mind twisting.

[WhiteWings]

So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:

Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?

I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example).  This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?

Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)

Sure, but how about cheating on your wife with your best friends wife.  (no money)

NET 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
The red limits not the type of evil but the number of people who reach for the money.

[legoman]

So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:

Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?

I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example).  This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?

Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)

Sure, but how about cheating on your wife with your best friends wife.  (no money)

NET 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
The red limits not the type of evil but the number of people who reach for the money.

Good point.  Maybe it really is the root of ALL evil.  If we are loving money, then we are not loving God nor our neighbor as ourselves, and these are the two commands we are to follow to fulfill all of God's commands.

Loving money conflicts with loving God and neighbors.

[Nicolás]

1 Timothy 2:4  AND  Isaiah 46:9-10 

are strong proof of UR. However, when I present them to someone who's not open to UR, they answer in ways that totally miss the point, as if they were unable to keep in mind the 2 statements at the same time. 

As for Catholics, it may be easier. Most of them only believe what comes from the Catholic Church, so you can show them the article:
"Universal salvation and the Roman Catholic Church" which is in this site, along with quotes from Jean Paul II and England Cardinal Cormac.

[WhiteWings]

So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:

Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?

I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example).  This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?

Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)

Sure, but how about cheating on your wife with your best friends wife.  (no money)

NET 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
The red limits not the type of evil but the number of people who reach for the money.

Good point.  Maybe it really is the root of ALL evil.  If we are loving money, then we are not loving God nor our neighbor as ourselves, and these are the two commands we are to follow to fulfill all of God's commands.

Loving money conflicts with loving God and neighbors.

Can't remember the verse but there is one similar to "If you break one law/commandment you have broken them all."
And money is indeed the root for many sins. Just a few I can think of now. Far from complete.
Prostitution, jelousy, theft, murder, slavery, greed, fraud(lie), etc
I also think we should limit the word money to cash as we know it. Maybe for a yet undiscovered tribe coconuts are money.

[legoman]

1 Timothy 2:4  AND  Isaiah 46:9-10 

are strong proof of UR. However, when I present them to someone who's not open to UR, they answer in ways that totally miss the point, as if they were unable to keep in mind the 2 statements at the same time. 

Good point - its called compartmentalization; I believe many people do this in order to hold two contradictory ideas.  ie. God does what He desires, but God can't get what He desires when it comes to saving all men.  Or God is love, but God MUST torture people forever if people don't love Him...

Compartmentalization is the only thing that holds their world together.

They will use "context" as an excuse to justify the compartmentalization.  "God only desires to save people in 1 Tim 2:4 - that's only in the context of the letter to Timothy, but in Isaiah 46:9-10, its an entirely different context, so it doesn't apply" etc.

[Seth]

1 Timothy 2:4  AND  Isaiah 46:9-10 

are strong proof of UR. However, when I present them to someone who's not open to UR, they answer in ways that totally miss the point, as if they were unable to keep in mind the 2 statements at the same time. 

As for Catholics, it may be easier. Most of them only believe what comes from the Catholic Church, so you can show them the article:
"Universal salvation and the Roman Catholic Church" which is in this site, along with quotes from Jean Paul II and England Cardinal Cormac.

I am married into a Catholic family, and one thing I have encountered is that they tend not to take the Bible as the final authority, but all the teachings of the Catholic writers put together.

I have found that with Calvanists, 1 Timothy 2:4  AND  Isaiah 46:9-10 exposes the "limited atonement" falsehood easily disproved by Romans 5, and many many more,
With Arminians....well, it pretty much tends to ends the conversation.

[Seth]

1 Timothy 2:4  AND  Isaiah 46:9-10 

are strong proof of UR. However, when I present them to someone who's not open to UR, they answer in ways that totally miss the point, as if they were unable to keep in mind the 2 statements at the same time. 

Good point - its called compartmentalization; I believe many people do this in order to hold two contradictory ideas.  ie. God does what He desires, but God can't get what He desires when it comes to saving all men.  Or God is love, but God MUST torture people forever if people don't love Him...

Compartmentalization is the only thing that holds their world together.

They will use "context" as an excuse to justify the compartmentalization.  "God only desires to save people in 1 Tim 2:4 - that's only in the context of the letter to Timothy, but in Isaiah 46:9-10, its an entirely different context, so it doesn't apply" etc.

With Armenians, it's a more challenging proposition, because they do believe that God can "get what he wants" they just forget that when talking about salvation of all. So they two scriptures put together very tightly two things that they believe at different times:

1. God will do what he wants
2. God wants to save all

An Armineist basic doctrine is: "God wants to but it's up to humans." So, if they try to argue context with Isaiah, they are put into the position of admiting that they believe God to be incapable of something.  The only reason they would want to contextualize Isaiah is to say it only applies to a specific context, meaning that in other contexts, "God cannot" and they don't really want to say that, because they don't want to limit Him, certainly not to a heathen universalist who is proclaiming God's might and power, when they do the same thing in their praise and worship.

Then, on the other hand, the only reason they would want to contextualize Timothy is to say that God doesn't want ALL men to be saved. They can't do that either.....because it would make them Calvinists. They believe He does want all to be saved. So contextualizing either Isaiah or Timothy is pointless.

They are then put in the same position I was: either God is able, and cruelly does not want to save all. Or He is kind and does want to save all, yet is weak. Neither option is savory to the Armeniest, and the two scripture show the choice.

YEs, Calvanists have the "limited atonement" theory, which Arminians consider heresy, but limited atonement is pretty easily dismantled as you know.

[NinjaWizards777]

They are then put in the same position I was: either God is able, and cruelly does not want to save all. Or He is kind and does want to save all, yet is weak.

Just like to add that even in the second proposition...he is still cruel, because that means he brought the majority of humanity into existence knowing that they would suffer a terrible eternal fate...yet created them anyway.

and when you break it down to those two inevitable conclusions, you realize that cannot be God.

[Seth]

They are then put in the same position I was: either God is able, and cruelly does not want to save all. Or He is kind and does want to save all, yet is weak.

Just like to add that even in the second proposition...he is still cruel, because that means he brought the majority of humanity into existence knowing that they would suffer a terrible eternal fate...yet created them anyway.

and when you break it down to those two inevitable conclusions, you realize that cannot be God.

Yup, the Calvinist is comfortable with that conclusion. The Arminiest is not.

[Lee Damboise]

Salvation
   What is the most important
thing in the Scripture for the sinner?
Many will answer, Salvation.  Yet this
important term only came into use in
the English language about the twelfth
century, say eight hundred years ago.
It is a purely Latin word. At that time
it bore the meanings both of safty or
salvation, and of health.  The believer's
salvation was his "health".  Salvation
occurs not once in the Anglo-Saxon
Scriptures (680-900 A.D.),or in Wiclif's
version (1380 A.D.). Wiclif always uses
the word  "health", although he uses the
terms"make safe" and "safe". The old
word used for the Saviour was Haelend,
 or "Healer". Not only does He make one
safe, but He heals. Tyndale, in the year
1526A.D. was the first one to use the word
salvation in the Scriptures, and he used
it once only, in John 4:22("for salvacion
commeth of the Jews". Wiclif  had, "for
heelthe is of Jews")  Thereafter the fine
old English word "health" dropped out
and was completely displaced by the
imported but now most important Latin
word  " salvation". A Rising Son Ministries & Services
From,Whence Eternity? Alexander Thomson. Concordant
Publishing Concern, Retyped by Lee Damboise II 

[Seth]

Salvation
   What is the most important
thing in the Scripture for the sinner?
Many will answer, Salvation.  Yet this
important term only came into use in
the English language about the twelfth
century, say eight hundred years ago.
It is a purely Latin word. At that time
it bore the meanings both of safty or
salvation, and of health.  The believer's
salvation was his "health".  Salvation
occurs not once in the Anglo-Saxon
Scriptures (680-900 A.D.),or in Wiclif's
version (1380 A.D.). Wiclif always uses
the word  "health", although he uses the
terms"make safe" and "safe". The old
word used for the Saviour was Haelend,
 or "Healer". Not only does He make one
safe, but He heals. Tyndale, in the year
1526A.D. was the first one to use the word
salvation in the Scriptures, and he used
it once only, in John 4:22("for salvacion
commeth of the Jews". Wiclif  had, "for
heelthe is of Jews")  Thereafter the fine
old English word "health" dropped out
and was completely displaced by the
imported but now most important Latin
word  " salvation". A Rising Son Ministries & Services
From,Whence Eternity? Alexander Thomson. Concordant
Publishing Concern, Retyped by Lee Damboise II 

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

[WhiteWings]

Hi Lee,

Thanks for bringing this up again. I posted the same article here a while back. Since then I use the quote I have under my avatar now.
John 4:22 Ye worschipen that ye knowen not; we worschipen that that we knowen; for helthe is of the Jewis.
Wiclif's is about the only place (+this article)  Jesus is called Healer.
But there are plenty of site that will inform you that Yahshua means: Yah(weh) Saves instead of Yah(weh) Heals.

What's going on? Wiclif was wrong? Meaning of the word changed? Got corrupted by church?

[Lee Damboise]

Don't know if anything is wrong, just the article I have and knew about.

it was all for His reasons.   

[WhiteWings]

Lee, perhaps wrong is the wrong word...
Let me rephrase it: "I like the word Healer; do you have more information about it Lee?"
As I wrote in that other thread "Healer" sounds a bit stronger than "Saviour"
Both very positive words but I somehow prefer Healer.
Ofcourse it changes nothing or very very little about the Bible. It's just that from all the aion and fire stuff I learned that it's not wise just to accept (well intended) mistranslations.
 

[Lee Damboise]

I will check and get back asap

[Lee Damboise]

WW, the only thing I found so far is a book that I am almost pos. that you know, but is a must for any person that believe as we do.

Restitution of all things
by Andrew Jukes
March of 1867
sold by tentmaker-sigler-concordant Pub. concern

[WhiteWings]

Click here for the original version on Google books.

And here for online version on the TM site.

[Tim B]

With that, they must face two possibilities: 1) either they believe God can do all his pleasure by saving everyone only he does not want to, which contradicts the first scripture saying he DOES want to  or 2) they must say that God does want to save everyone, but cannot which contradicts the second scripture.

Even if they find ways to twist either the first or second scripture, they still have to deal with that dilemma and those scriptures underline the dilemma which is completely solved by saying "God does want all to be saved and he both can and will do all his pleasure."

Most of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.) But the dilemma will never change as long as they teach that either God wants to but cannot, or can but does not want to.

Again, this will not be taken as proof by them, but it will at least get them thinking and will establish that it is not the URer who is confused.

I talked to a Calvinist one time and asked her, "If God can save all people [and she believed he could], and he desires to [I believe I used 1 Timothy 2:4], then why doesn't he?"

Her reply was: "Well, that's just desire [that is, it's JUST God's desire]. That's something different."

Either God has two natures waring against each other, a will to eternally lose certain men, and a will to eternally save all men, what she said was a blatant absurdity. Unless she accepts the option I just suggested (that God must have two warring natures), she would have to accept that God is not all powerful.

[Seth]

I talked to a Calvinist one time and asked her, "If God can save all people [and she believed he could], and he desires to [I believe I used 1 Timothy 2:4], then why doesn't he?"

Her reply was: "Well, that's just desire [that is, it's JUST God's desire]. That's something different."

Either God has two natures waring against each other, a will to eternally lose certain men, and a will to eternally save all men, what she said was a blatant absurdity. Unless she accepts the option I just suggested (that God must have two warring natures), she would have to accept that God is not all powerful.

That's really interesting because a hardcore and knowledgeable Calvinist would say that God doesn't want to save all people because Jesus didn't die for all people.

What is most notable to me about the Isaiah scripture is that it declares that not only CAN God get what he wants but it says "I SHALL do all my pleasure." That's a stronger statement than "I CAN." It's more like "I SHALL."