All men

[civic]

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2;for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3;This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4;who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

How many times does God need to say all before it means all ?

Is there anyone that should not be prayer for ?

 

[JoshebB]

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2;for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3;This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4;who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

How many times does God need to say all before it means all ?

That depends.

Were I to describe a gathering of Christians, and within that context, state "God wanted all men to bow and pray," I would not be referring to all people not present in the gathering of Christians. Furthermore, were I to say, "I paid for all men's admittance," I would not necessarily mean I was paying for the admission of all the men not attending. It might mean I paid the cost of admission for every one of the billions of men on the planet, but that would not mean all mean attended the gathering, or that all the men were capable of attending.

In other words, words can have many different meanings. This is why exegesis, or the scientific or forensic analysis of words is important.

The last time you and I traded posts multiple exegetical errors were cited and not a single one of them were ever addressed or corrected.

Is there anyone that should not be prayer for ?

No.

Neither that question, nor the answer provided, is particularly Arminian or Calvinist. Implying that is not the case is a misrepresentation of soteriology as a whole.

 

[TibiasDad]

Were I to describe a gathering of Christians, and within that context, state "God wanted all men to bow and pray," I would not be referring to all people not present in the gathering of Christians.

But the context is not exclusive to just believers. Yes, it is talking about what believers should do, namely, pray for people; but the object of these prayers by believers is not exclusively other believers.
It is about praying for all people in authority, most of whom would not be believers.

Doug

 

[civic]

But the context is not exclusive to just believers. Yes, it is talking about what believers should do, namely, pray for people; but the object of these prayers by believers is not exclusively other believers.
It is about praying for all people in authority, most of whom would not be believers.

Doug

Amen

 

[JoshebB]

But the context is not exclusive to just believers.

That is incorrect. This is one of the foundational problems in synergism. Verses are repeatedly removed from their stated context. Verses written specifically, explicitly, exclusively about Christians (or Jews) are taken out of context and applied to people completely removed from scripture's self-stated application. Audience affiliations are constantly ignored. Covenant relationship is constantly ignored.

In the case of 2 Timothy 2:1-6, God's desire for everyone to be saved is removed from and pitted against Gd's other desires. It's a construction fallacy. God also desires to mete out just recompense for those denying His Son. That desire necessarily implies there will be some denying Jesu no matter how much prayer for them is provided by Timothy. If God's desire for all to be saved is not accounted for alongside of and within His co-occurring desire to destroy the Christ-deniers then that desire is misguided, God holds false desires, and that disqualifies Him as God. You cannot take 2 Tim. 2:1-6 and prooftext it. You cannot treat it as God sole desire, His preeminent desire, nor the desire that determines everything else.

Yes, it is talking about what believers should do, namely, pray for people; but the object of these prayers by believers is not exclusively other believers.

I agree, but that does not mean salvation is dependent upon the will of the sinner's unregenerate flesh. All you have done by citing 2 Tim. 2 is dodge the issue, the issue that lays at the foundation of synergism. You've misappropriated scripture to dodge the issue and asserted a construction fallacy. Objectively speaking, there's no way any soteriology built on sloppy exegesis and fallacy can ever be correct.

It is about praying for all people in authority, most of whom would not be believers.

Doug

That is correct and I was on record explicitly stating, "No [there is no one for whom we should not be praying, but], Neither that question, nor the answer provided, is particularly Arminian or Calvinist. Implying that is not the case is a misrepresentation of soteriology as a whole."

In other words, as a monergist, I can and do openly and unabashedly state there is no one for whom we Christians should not pray. In other words, @civic, has, once again, misrepresented Calvinism so as to imply Calvinism teaches there are those for whom we should not pray. That is not what Calvin, nor the ~ism bearing his name, has ever taught. The op is solely another example of deceit because civ knows better. I know he knows better because I've traded posts with him on this subject for more than a decade (maybe two) and I have witnessed him doing so with many others, too.


Do you know what it is called when someone knowingly, willingly misrepresents facts with an intent to deceive?

 

[TibiasDad]

That is incorrect. This is one of the foundational problems in synergism. Verses are repeatedly removed from their stated context. Verses written specifically, explicitly, exclusively about Christians (or Jews) are taken out of context and applied to people completely removed from scripture's self-stated application. Audience affiliations are constantly ignored. Covenant relationship is constantly ignored.

I am not referring to those to whom Paul is writing, ie Timothy, but about whom he is writing to Timothy to pray for:

1I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Christians pray for “all people”, including for those in power, their spiritual condition notwithstanding. We do this that we can live in peace with all people by exhibiting love for them.

Do you know what it is called when someone knowingly, willingly misrepresents facts with an intent to deceive?

I am not in a position to judge anyone’s motives…but my experience with @civic would not correlate to your opinion about him, either as a Calvinist nor now.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

In the case of 2 Timothy 2:1-6, God's desire for everyone to be saved is removed from and pitted against Gd's other desires.

1Tim 2:1-6 states no other desire of God to be pitted against. Perhaps you can disclose that second desire.

Doug

 

[civic]

I am not referring to those to whom Paul is writing, ie Timothy, but about whom he is writing to Timothy to pray for:

1I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Christians pray for “all people”, including for those in power, their spiritual condition notwithstanding. We do this that we can live in peace with all people by exhibiting love for them.



I am not in a position to judge anyone’s motives…but my experience with @civic would not correlate to your opinion about him, either as a Calvinist nor now.

Doug

I only get that from Calvinists since I left Calvinism. But it’s funny for the past 20 years these same Calvinists always affirmed my posts as a Calvinist. The reality is I know the doctrine better than most of them so Im a thorn in their flesh and their flesh comes out with ad hominems.

It’s not like I forgot what I believed and taught for the past 40 years.

 

[TibiasDad]

I only get that from Calvinists since I left Calvinism. But it’s funny for the past 20 years these same Calvinists always affirmed my posts as a Calvinist. The reality is I know the doctrine better than most of them so Im a thorn in their flesh and their flesh comes out with ad hominems.

It’s not like I forgot what I believed and taught for the past 40 years.

Well at least two of us remember what you used to teach…

Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

That depends.

Were I to describe a gathering of Christians, and within that context, state "God wanted all men to bow and pray," I would not be referring to all people not present in the gathering of Christians. Furthermore, were I to say, "I paid for all men's admittance," I would not necessarily mean I was paying for the admission of all the men not attending. It might mean I paid the cost of admission for every one of the billions of men on the planet, but that would not mean all mean attended the gathering, or that all the men were capable of attending.

In other words, words can have many different meanings. This is why exegesis, or the scientific or forensic analysis of words is important.

The last time you and I traded posts multiple exegetical errors were cited and not a single one of them were ever addressed or corrected.

No.

Neither that question, nor the answer provided, is particularly Arminian or Calvinist. Implying that is not the case is a misrepresentation of soteriology as a whole.

Why did you ignore the need to deal with the "why" of prayer? A man as smart as yourself should clearly recognize this context. I did. Dumb ole me got it.

 

[atpollard]

Is there anyone that should not be prayer for ?

Esau. [Malachi 1:3]

… because David, a man after God’s heart [1 Samuel 13:14], said: “Do I not hate those who hate You, LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?” [Psalm 139:21].

 

[civic]

Esau. [Malachi 1:3]

… because David, a man after God’s heart [1 Samuel 13:14], said: “Do I not hate those who hate You, LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?” [Psalm 139:21].

Jesus says to pray for your enemies and those who persecute you and to also love them .

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus says to pray for your enemies and those who persecute you and to also love them .

Jacob forgave Esau. Good thing Jacob didn't hate his brother like Cain did.

 

[JoshebB]

I am not referring to those to whom Paul is writing, ie Timothy, but about whom he is writing to Timothy to pray for:

1I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Christians pray for “all people”, including for those in power, their spiritual condition notwithstanding. We do this that we can live in peace with all people by exhibiting love for them.

I know. I understand. I agree. I do not see that post adds anything further to the discussion.

I am not in a position to judge anyone’s motives…but my experience with @civic would not correlate to your opinion about him, either as a Calvinist nor now.

Doug

No one is asking you to judge anything other than the words of a post. The question asked in the op has been answered. The answer is, "No, there is no one for whom we should not pray." That is not a Cal v Arm thing.

Short discussion.

 

[JoshebB]

1Tim 2:1-6 states no other desire of God to be pitted against. Perhaps you can disclose that second desire.

Doug

Hmmm.... no verse, nor any given passage should ever be rendered without consideration of, or in any way contrary to the whole of scripture. Yes?

The whole of scripture identifies many desires of God. Yes?

Assuming the answer to both questions is in the affirmative, why am I being asked for something you already know and with which you are not proactively posting in accordance? It disingenuous to post as if you do not already know God has multiple desires and you don't know them. It's also disingenuous to make that request when I've already answered and addressed it.

God desire all be saved. God also desires to mete out the just recompense for disobedience. These are not two mutually exclusive desires. Are we not also to pray for justice? Is justice a Cal v Arm thing? Assuming the answer to that question is, "No," then, once again,

Short discussion.


I am happy to discuss how and why it is Cals and Arms share these two positions once I see some consensus this op is not a Cal v Arm post. Any implication or insinuation Cals and Arms disagree on the matter of praying for everyone is either a red herring or a lie. God has a word for those who unnecessarily and unjustly divide the Church. Anyone know what God calls those people?

 

[JoshebB]

Why did you ignore the need to deal with the "why" of prayer? A man as smart as yourself should clearly recognize this context. I did. Dumb ole me got it.

Why do you not control the impulse to make things personal and expect me to give it credence, tolerate it and collaborate with it?

Rewrite the post, removing the insinuated ad hominem.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Why do you not control the impulse to make things personal and expect me to give it credence, tolerate it and collaborate with it?

Rewrite the post, removing the insinuated ad hominem.

You're too smart to not know the arguments. No ad hominem involved. People make choices in how they respond. Those choices indicate their bias.

So tell me how prayer changes you me. I remember the first monergist I ever read admitting the difficulty of such arguments. I still think of him. Often a fair man. An accomplished man. You might know him. Daniel B Wallace.

 

[TibiasDad]

Hmmm.... no verse, nor any given passage should ever be rendered without consideration of, or in any way contrary to the whole of scripture. Yes?

You didn’t identify the larger context of scripture; you said

In the case of 2 Timothy 2:1-6, God's desire for everyone to be saved is removed from and pitted against Gd's other desires.

Aside from repeatedly referring to 2Tim 2:1-6, when the discussion is about 1 Tim 2:1-6, you only referenced the context of the Timothy passage, specifically saying, “In the case of (1) Timothy 2:1-6…” that “God's desire for everyone to be saved is removed from and pitted against Gd's other desires.”
There is no other Divine desire expressed in 1 Tim 2:1-6 to be “pitted against”! (Nor is there in 2 Tim 2:1-6! Just to be through.)


Doug

 

[JoshebB]

You're too smart to not know the arguments. No ad hominem involved. People make choices in how they respond. Those choices indicate their bias.

So tell me how prayer changes you me. I remember the first monergist I ever read admitting the difficulty of such arguments. I still think of him. Often a fair man. An accomplished man. You might know him. Daniel B Wallace.

Have you anything op-relevant to post? If so then post it. Otherwise, do not expect me to collaborate with digression, nor any attempt at hijacking the thread.

 

[JoshebB]

You didn’t identify the larger context of scripture; you said

Aside from repeatedly referring to 2Tim 2:1-6, when the discussion is about 1 Tim 2:1-6, you only referenced the context of the Timothy passage, specifically saying, “In the case of (1) Timothy 2:1-6…” that “God's desire for everyone to be saved is removed from and pitted against Gd's other desires.”
There is no other Divine desire expressed in 1 Tim 2:1-6 to be “pitted against”! (Nor is there in 2 Tim 2:1-6! Just to be through.)


Doug

Are you looking for disagreement?

You (and everyone else) have the information you need from a Calvinist to understand the answer to the question asked and the poverty of the op as an unjust and unnecessary device for dividing the body of Christ. "You didn’t identify the larger context of scripture," is, therefore, meaningless bait and I am not biting.

Galatians 5:20-21
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Calvinists do not mind defending their beliefs when their beliefs are correctly presented. It is an ungodly practice to argue strawmen (both scripturally and logically) so any insinuation intended by this op that Calvinists do not believe everyone should be prayed for is a work of the flesh (or an influence of the adversary). 1 Tim. 2:1-6 is NOT and Cal v Arm thing.

You didn’t identify the larger context of scripture....

So what? Are you trying to change the subject? Are you trying to start an argument?

you said...

What I said was said in reference to the opposition. Cals do not pit divine desires against one another. 1 Tim. 2:1-6 is NOT and Cal v Arm thing. @civic is wrong if he's implying the passage is a Cal v Arm thing. It's very sad because a minute-long search for what Calvin said about this text would have prevented the op.

That, above all, prayers be made. First, he speaks of public prayers, which he enjoins to be offered, not only for believers, but for all mankind. Some might reason thus with themselves: "Why should we be anxious about the salvation of unbelievers, with whom we have no connection? Is it not enough, if we, who are brethren, pray mutually for our brethren, and recommend to God the whole of his Church? for we have nothing to do with strangers." This perverse view Paul meets, and enjoins the Ephesians to include in their prayers all men, and not to limit them to the body of the Church.............. But not to dwell longer than is proper on a matter that is not essential, Paul, in my own opinion, simply enjoins that, whenever public prayers are offered, petitions and supplications should be made for all men, even for those who at present are not at all related to us.​

Calvin called the notion prayers should be made solely for saints "perverse." That is what this op is. It's a tiresome and completely avoidable kind of perversity, too. The op is not an accurate reflection of Calvinism, and this Calvinist has answered the question asked in a manner consistent with Calvinism and it does not conflict in any way with Arminianism. 1 Tim. 2 is definitely not a Cal v Arm thing. The appropriate response is,

Amen!

Not,

You didn’t identify the larger context of scripture....

Don't be misrepresenting my posts, don't be changing the topic, don't be hijacking the thread, and don't be expecting me to collaborate with any of it. The question asked is not difficult to answer and the answer to the question asked is not complicated.

Is there anyone that should not be prayer for ?

No.

Neither that question, nor the answer provided, is particularly Arminian or Calvinist. Implying that is not the case is a misrepresentation of soteriology as a whole.

No, there is no one that should not be prayed for. 1 Tim 2:1-6 is not a Cal v Arm thing. And EVERYONE in the thread said,

AMEN!​

And then turned in unison (regardless of their personal soteriological orientation) to @civic and inquired how and why he might have thought otherwise when that is clearly not the case , because we don't do baseless, unjust division where unity exists.