Does Rom 5:18 teach that Christ died for all men without exception ?
- Thread starter brightfame52
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Does 1 Tim 4:10
10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Does this verse teach that God in Christ is the Saviour of all men without exception? By no means, that is a contradiction of scripture, lost men don't have God as a Saviour, duh!
Instead the verse teaches limited atonement just like the Truth is in Christ Jesus. The word especially here is a adverb and it actually is a qualifier of who God in Christ is a Saviour unto. The word means:
most of all, especially.
málista (from mala, "very much") – very much the case; particularly so; especially (mostly) so.
See that, its teaching particular salvation, Hes a Saviour particularly to them believing. The word especially also means, exclusively. So God is Saviour exclusively and particularly to believers, whether jew or gentile.
10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Does this verse teach that God in Christ is the Saviour of all men without exception? By no means, that is a contradiction of scripture, lost men don't have God as a Saviour, duh!
Instead the verse teaches limited atonement just like the Truth is in Christ Jesus. The word especially here is a adverb and it actually is a qualifier of who God in Christ is a Saviour unto. The word means:
most of all, especially.
málista (from mala, "very much") – very much the case; particularly so; especially (mostly) so.
See that, its teaching particular salvation, Hes a Saviour particularly to them believing. The word especially also means, exclusively. So God is Saviour exclusively and particularly to believers, whether jew or gentile.
It would be nice to see you do some actual work rather than misinterpreting single verses to read your erroneous theology into them.
It's also interesting to watch you selectively define words when you think they might help your error but not when they won't, such as Rom5:17 "receive".
When we look at malista a good way to consider it is with the concept of sets and subsets. It doesn't negate the set (the whole) - it simply brings focus to the subset within the set.
Paul uses it about 8x in his writings to bring a narrow focus - to highlight a focus - on a subset within a set. He uses it 3x this way in 1Tim and this is the same 1Tim in which 1Tim2:4 tells us God's desire is the Salvation of all men. So, this 1Tim4:10 fits perfectly with 1Tim2:4. It also fits perfectly with Paul's other writing in Rom5:17-19 that you're stubbornly misinterpreting for us.
What God our Savior did to save was sufficient for all. What God our Savior requires is willing receipt of His Grace by Faith.
It's really not that difficult to take hold of.
Maybe this will assist you: There are many promoting error in these threads, especially you.
It's also interesting to watch you selectively define words when you think they might help your error but not when they won't, such as Rom5:17 "receive".
When we look at malista a good way to consider it is with the concept of sets and subsets. It doesn't negate the set (the whole) - it simply brings focus to the subset within the set.
Paul uses it about 8x in his writings to bring a narrow focus - to highlight a focus - on a subset within a set. He uses it 3x this way in 1Tim and this is the same 1Tim in which 1Tim2:4 tells us God's desire is the Salvation of all men. So, this 1Tim4:10 fits perfectly with 1Tim2:4. It also fits perfectly with Paul's other writing in Rom5:17-19 that you're stubbornly misinterpreting for us.
What God our Savior did to save was sufficient for all. What God our Savior requires is willing receipt of His Grace by Faith.
It's really not that difficult to take hold of.
Maybe this will assist you: There are many promoting error in these threads, especially you.
Those Christ brought justification upon was by His one act. Nothing about requiring Faith. Please show me the word Faith in Rom 5:18
And Faith in Rom 5:1 is Christ, His work from Rom 4:25 when He rose for their Justification. And again its about the elect. There is only one people promised Justification in the Lord, Israel Gods elect Isa 45:25
In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
Those Justified by Faith/Christ in Rom 5:1 is all the seed Rom 4:16
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Of course this is way above your head.
And Faith in Rom 5:1 is Christ, His work from Rom 4:25 when He rose for their Justification. And again its about the elect. There is only one people promised Justification in the Lord, Israel Gods elect Isa 45:25
In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
Those Justified by Faith/Christ in Rom 5:1 is all the seed Rom 4:16
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Of course this is way above your head.
So, we use a Reformed theologian to substantiate Reformed theology. That's helpful.
Can you explain your red highlighted portion? Do you know if other traditions agree or disagree with it in part or in totality? Do you think others don't agree that the object of Faith has the merit?
BTW, your response to info on malista was profound.
Can you explain your red highlighted portion? Do you know if other traditions agree or disagree with it in part or in totality? Do you think others don't agree that the object of Faith has the merit?
BTW, your response to info on malista was profound.
I do think intent is certainly part of faithfulness. But you're resting on clear errors in interpreting Scripture and taking stubborn stands against some good input from some here.
Do yourself and us a favor and at least look at Paul's use of malista and consider what I pointed out about it. I'll work through it with you if you'd like. We can start in the 1Tim usages. It's a pretty simple study.
Do yourself and us a favor and at least look at Paul's use of malista and consider what I pointed out about it. I'll work through it with you if you'd like. We can start in the 1Tim usages. It's a pretty simple study.
