My hermeneutic is the context. “…on the field” was just an example. The point was that the language does not have to be all inclusive even if there are no boundaries. So, I could includ the example of “all Jersalem” but if you need another example: “So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

Same case, “the world” does not mean the entire world. Neither did Jerusalem include all Jerusalem. And by that same rule of language, 2 Tim 2.4 does not need to mean all men everywhere without distinction.

The Great Commission is another example. All the world there has two connotations. One for the immediate audience, another for the Chruch at large. There are in fact two commissions given. One to the immediate audience of the 12, through whose authority the other is given. To complicate this Romans 10 tells us that in the OT as Paul reflected, that the Gospel has already gone to the whole world. In both cases of the Commission and of Romans the words all and world do not have the connotation of the entirety in every case, though they contain some sense of it. In the case of the commission it cannot mean that the immediate audience was personally to go to the whole world, for they did not, and since they did not, if all the world meant the entirety, the great commission was a failure.

Here is another one: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.”

Here it is not all the tribes of the earth but only those who are not his people who will wail.

My hermenutic is not as pat as you are making it. It is infact yours, and not mine that makes it such that it must me “all men” everywhere without distinction, when the text does not say that, nor is it necessary that it should be interpreted that way, as I have demonstrated.

You have yet to address the context. If you would do that, then we can move to more general principles.

2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

Again the context is leadership and the behavior of the church in 1st and 2 Peter. This time in the face of tribulation and persecution. The object of the letter is “you”, plural and exludes the unbelieving world. The repentance spoken about is the repentance of believers. It is not in the context of salvation, but, the current conditions, again, just as it was in Timothy “that we might dwell in peace.” So Peter goes on: “Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.” It is to the sanctification of believers and the building up of the church that the admonishments and references are being made.

As I said, the context of Timothy is leadership and establishment of the sanctified church. The prayers for all men in leadership that are to be made in every place therefore is more likely to speaking of the establishing of the church, its repentance and sanctification, its leaders. But, even if it is broader and includes the unbelieving magistrates, there is no need to extend the repentance and peace prayed for to beyond the church.

Now, getting back to the impossibility… It is impossible for those for whom Christ did not die to be saved. If it were, Jesus would have been interceeding for the world in John 17, and not only for those who would be saved. So, we pray according to, if it is possible, let them be saved. Not, you have saved them all by your blood, now let them recognize it. For Jesus himself did not pray that way. He restricts his glorification and therefore the glorification of the Father as only being accomplished in those given him by the Father. There simply is no way around it except to do as you say I have done; presupose a hermeneutic that makes it impossible to be otherwise. It is your presupposition and not mine. Scripture presupposes that only a limited number will be saved. It is the very nature of God that determines that that is so. The hermeutic, is God’s, not mine.

Thomas Twitchell’s last blog post..Grace? Oh Grace, yea it’s on North Fourth.

It isn’t a stretch or a grasp at all. In fact, I feel as though you are grasping and using a hermeneutic that begins with an assumption that “surely God can’t be meaning all here because that would be impossible.” As a result, you see based on your assumption, one that isn’t in the text but only the result of your own lack of belief in God making all things possible for those who are in Christ. At least that is how I feel.

Such as, The players were everywhere.

You’re grasping. You have to have it. But, the rules of language will no allow you to.

But, the instruction to pray for men everywhere is not in the text. It says men everywhere should pray.

Join us.

Thomas Twitchell’s last blog post..Grace? Oh Grace, yea it’s on North Fourth.

Yes, and that is very clear, just as 1 Timothy 2 is clear to pray for all men everywhere. It isn’t limited at all by being “on the field” or “in Disneyworld.”

Some of my translations are literal renderings based on the origional languages, to the best of my very limited ability. At other times I paraphrase as is our liberty when we preach or teach. Hopefully, I do not turn to far to the right or left.

As far as the word all, I covered it extensively in the lost post. So I just some up. If I was covering a football game I might say that all the players were on the field. I would not by that mean all the player in the world that have ever existed or will exist in all places at all times. If I said there were quarterbacks and other leaders of the team, I might say that they were all men but again I would not be saying that they were everyman that has ever existed everywhere at all times and all places. In short the word pas does not need to be all inclusive and must be defined by the context.

The context is kings, basileus, which simply means commander or prince (quarterback) and then authorities (team leaders) (This ties in again to Chapter 6 of 1 Tim). The all men could be inclusive of civil magitrates but not necessarily those who are non-believers. In either case the topic is the establishment of the church and not salvation. Second is the context of Timothy which is leadership and governance of the Church and Paul as just finished speaking of leaders who were disciplined by him. His prayer for leadership then, may be even more restrictive to leaders and authorities in the church and not civilian leaders at all. Again, the scope of all men is governed by the context. Though not necessarily exclusive of non-believers, the controling verses indicate that the scope is limited. There is also the argument from kind. Note, while antropos is used, it does not include women necessarily, and in the cultural context, kings and magistrates were not women. If we are to extend the desires to all men, we may be excluding women when we push it to the extreme of exaustive meaning. Further Paul makes the distinction between all men and women. He says these men, or the men, and may be a reference back to all men.

That should be enough. As you see, this does not necessarily mean all people, or everyone in all everywhere in all places at all times. Far from that, we know from the testimony of Scripture and from historical precedent, that the extent of the Gospel is particularly, regionally, and nationally restrictive. Again, Genesis 24 is a clear prophetic view of the Bride of the Seed. It is clear from that chapter, that it is only the seed of Abraham’s family (the family of faith) from which the Bride is selected. God’s purpose is a particular people and that is why Christ died- only for those given to him, his church for whom he died. He died for no other bride. He is a faithful husband of one particular people.

As in Timothy, it is all who are of a certain kind, which ties nicely to Jesus prayer for those not of the world, those who were anothen gennao, born from above.

Thomas Twitchell’s last blog post..Packer’s First Point « 2 Worlds Collide

Do you often put things in your own translation? Your quotes of scripture don’t match any I know – is it your translation from Greek?

John 17 doesn’t just put it in term of not praying for the unbelievers who are yet to be unbelievers, but those who are not from above. Namely, those for whom Christ was sent to die. The entirety of John 17 is the glorification of him glorifying the Father by the finished work of the cross. It is that thing which he is doing, not for the world, but for those the Father has given him. It just could not be any clearer.

Definite atonement, or limited atonement, however you want to call it has it roots in the nature of God. He is omnicient eternally, unchanging. There never was a time when he did not know the absolute number of the elect. That is, he did not come to this knowledge, but rather, it is because he is. When we look at all the terms, such as ransom, we get the fullness of the picture. The blood of Christ is not some common thing that is offered which cannot take away sin, but does that verything. And, here is the rub. We were saved by his death. A one time event. It was back there, and not in the present where Scripture says that we died with him. Now, if the atonement includes everyone, then everyone died with Christ, and if that is the case then everyone will be raised with him. But, Christ said no. Only those who the Father draws, and he knows each by name eternally, will be drawn, and all who are drawn are raised up.

Sorry, but to universalize the atonement boxes God in and not the other way around. It makes God beholden to man’s choice, making man Lord, and God his servant. But, God is freely, and freely chooses a bride for his son, Genesis 24. Particularity, and not generality is throughout the OT, it is historically true of the world at large. It simply cannot be denied that God has chosen a people, distinct, discrete and definite, without denying that God is God.

Who does receive? According to John 1: 12-13, it is those who were born of God. That is right, they must be born of God before they receive, just as Jesus says in John 3:3. The kingdom cannot be seen, iedo, understood, unless one is first born again. Paul says that we do not understand these things until we have the mind of Christ in Corinthians and in Romans concludes that the flesh cannot submit itself, it is impossible for it to do so. So, until someone has the Spirit of God they cannot know God. And, if they do not know him as their God, they reject him as God.

The issue of free-will is the issue upon which the whole of the protestation of Luther hinged, he said in his disputation with Erasmus’s Diatribe. Except that God creates faith in an individual by grace, there is nothing in them to accept the free offer. A freed will, one freed from sin, must be restored to be able to offer the right sacrifice of praise, “Lord have mercy on me a sinner.” It is the Roman position that we can choose and that Christ died merely to provide the “grace” that if we choose we can be saved. It is not the protestant position, though it has crept back in the back door of Arminian-esque belief systems.

Up until five years ago I was teaching my daughter that God didn’t need to know all things. I was defending God, I thought. But, in reality I was defending my right to choose. To do so, I had to deny, or at least truncate God’s foreknowledge to only necessary knowledge. A position I have come to find out was put forth by a Roman Catholic named Molin (sp) and is called Molinism, a form of process or open theology. But, God in his mercy and grace opened my ears to what I was saying. I was saying that I knew what God did not and that God was not al knowing. It was at that point I began my serious study of God’s word.

Now I know him, in Truth. Not that I was not born again, but as with Job, I had only heard about him, now I saw.

Then, how do we know this to be the fact? Well, no one believes unless God has so loved them this way. And, he has been doing that eternally. For that is what it means when Scripture says that God foreknew. God knows those who are born from above. John uses this comparison repeatedly. The word Jesus used was anothen gennao, born from above. No one is ever born into the kingdom from below. And, God is only Father of the faithful, who live according to his Word. As it is written, he is the God of the living, and not of the dead. It is also written that while we were yet dead he made us alive by giving us new birth by his word. Now ours.

Thomas Twitchell’s last blog post..Packer’s First Point « 2 Worlds Collide

The way you speak of your beliefs it sounds like if they were proved untrue you would feel that your entire theological construct would fall apart. I’ve seen theologians who became atheists because of such.

Allow me to explain. You give God an ultimatum (and i believe a false dichotomy) and try to fit Him into a bos with your statements about atonement. you write that “either he died perfectly and did that which he was set forth to do, Isaiah 55, or he failed.”

Now, think about that. Why would unlimited atonement mean Christ failed, or that God failed. I think what you are also saying is that all in 1 Timothy couldn’t mean all because if God truly desired it then it would happen. I say “no.”

Is God strong enough to save everyone? Is Christ’s work at the cross enough to cover everyone?

The answer to both of these questions is yes. Could God choose some and not others? The answer to that is yes, too, but can it not be that God could choose all but He gives us the choice to choose Him? Atonement is a gift wiating to be received. he loves truly and true love is not a power play. it is a gift. Will men receive it or not? those who do not are left uncovered. Those who do are covered.

A picture of that would be if Bill Gates decided to give a dollar gift certificate to McD’s to everyone in the world. Bill pays for it on his AmEx Diamond card. it’s paid for, but we need to trust that it is a real gift and accept it, acting out on that trust, and buying our double cheeseburger with them- whatever it is to exercise ownership over the gift. A gift is a legal exchange – it has no effect until both given AND received. I would say atonement is the same.

Now, could I be wrong (here goes the statemetn that may sound postmodern to some) – yes. But if I am my faith in God remains unchallenged. It clearly is a disputable matter and great minds through all of time have disputed such. I don’t really need to undestand how atonment works; I just know it does – praise God.

You also say: “And I think if you contemplate what Jesus is saying to the Father in John 17, you cannot come away believing in an unlimited atonement. It cannot be fit in to the Lord’s prayer of intercession in any way.”

Why not? Why isn’t it simply that Jesus is praying the reality of what will happen but dying for all who would receive His gift of love? Besides, do we know for sure who all “those” are in verse 24 that Christ is referring to? Isn’t it even possible that he has shifted back to praying for the disciples with him? Just a thought.

Reread Proverbs. It is first fear, then knowledge then understanding and then wisdom. Though I share your priority, as does Proverbs making wisdom (praxis) it the primary reason for the others, practice can never be rightly accomplished without the first works in place. The Pharasees were great doers of doctrine but had no true knowledge of its meaning which voided all that they did. Their works of repentance were rejected by John and Jesus as being real works of repentance at all.

Thomas Twitchell’s last blog post..Packer’s First Point « 2 Worlds Collide