ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[ChristisKing]

ChristisKing,

You failed to address the "context" of the verse that says that the Lord would have "all men" to be saved.Here is the most immediate context in regard to the verse we are discussing:

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time"(1Tim.2:4-6).

He gave Himself as a ransom for "all" men. But you might ask,How do we know that this is not saying that He gave Himself a ransom for "all types" of men.

To answer that,please consider the following verse:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"(Ro.5:18).

The words "all men" in the first part of this verse means every single person,and I do not think that you will argure with that.Therefore,the ame words in the second part of the verse must mean the exact thing--every single person.A "free gift" came to every single person,and the results of receiving that free gift is justification before God.

Jerry,

You are jumping around.

You say if "all men" means every single person in one verse, it must mean every single person in all verses. But I have demonstarted to you the fallacy of doing this. 90% of the examples I gave you specifically defined "all men" to be not every single person on earth, why not apply those definitions to your verse? After all it is the vast majority! Why squeeze the minority meaning to define the term?

 

[Clete]

Or in other words, uncomfortably inconvienent from your arminian perspective... :chuckle:

I am not an Armininian.

Do you have any intention at all of engaging this debate for real or am I truly wasting my time?

 

[Clete]

The issue is about God's election of individuals, and as Paul says it doesn't matter anymore what nation you are from. It is the exact opposite of what you are saying, nations are no longer the issue at all:

ROM 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
ROM 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

You are twisting these verses to mean the exact opposite of their intent in order for them to fit your doctrine.

Who then are the various "vessels" which Paul is referring too? Do you not have to go to Jer. 18 (from which Paul himself is quoting) to find the answer? Does Jeremiah not make it so painfully clear that my 5 year old daughter could get it? It seems obvious to me that it is you who have turned these verses on their head in order to fit your doctrine.

By the way, you haven't yet answered my question. Do you or do you not hate your family in obedience to Christ's command to do just that?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ChristisKing]

Who then are the various "vessels" which Paul is referring too? Do you not have to go to Jer. 18 (from which Paul himself is quoting) to find the answer? Does Jeremiah not make it so painfully clear that my 5 year old daughter could get it? It seems obvious to me that it is you who have turned these verses on their head in order to fit your doctrine.

By the way, you haven't yet answered my question. Do you or do you not hate your family in obedience to Christ's command to do just that?

Resting in Him,
Clete

The vessels are exactly who Paul describes them as; individuals from both the Jewish and Gentile nations, not any particular nation. National election by God was done away with with the coming of Jesus Christ:

ROM 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
ROM 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

You are just like Jerry, you find one verse with the term "hate" that doesn't mean despise with hatred as it is commonly used and you try to squeeze it into another verse to fit your theology.

Do you want me to provide you with a list of examples of how "hate" is used in the bible so you can see how the vast majority of Scripture uses the term like I did "all men?" Or am I just wasting my time?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,

You are jumping around.

ChristisKing,

I am not jumping around.Instead I am examining the use of Paul's words "all men" in the immediate context.The Lord would have "all men" to be saved and He gave Himself a ransom for "all".

You say if "all men" means every single person in one verse, it must mean every single person in all verses. But I have demonstarted to you the fallacy of doing this. 90% of the examples I gave you specifically defined "all men" to be not every single person on earth, why not apply those definitions to your verse?

All of a sudden you say nothing about the fact that the meaning of "all men" must be determined by the "context".

After all it is the vast majority! Why squeeze the minority meaning to define the term?

Before you said that it is the "context" that must determine the meaning but now you say that we must use the "majority" meaning.

All you prove is that you want no part of the verses that demonstrate that the Lord's death provided a reconciliation for "all men".Not only does universal reconciliation prove that your idea in regard to the meaning of "all men" is in error,but more than this it proves that Calvinsm cannot be supported by the Scriptures.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[godrulz]

I am not an Armininian.

Do you have any intention at all of engaging this debate for real or am I truly wasting my time?

You are wasting your time.

 

[Clete]

ChristisKing,

Just answer the question.

Do you, or do you not, hate your family as Jesus commanded?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

godrulz,

Please allow me to clear up one of your earlier comments in regard to the following verse:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:12).

According to the Open Thesist view the test was to see whether or not Abraham "feared God".

But surely the Lord knew that Abraham had a fear of God before he took the knife to slay his son.And the Lord would have known that and would not need an outward demonstration in order to know the heart of Abraham:

"for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

The Open Thesist's ideas directly contradict 1Samuel 16:7 by saying that the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God until He judged Abraham by his outward appearance.

But you said:

God knew the heart and the test was genuine and resulted in new, certain knowledge based on this specific test of the heart.

So you must be saying that even though the Lord knew the heart of Abraham that knowledge was not "certain" until Abraham was tested.

Is that what you are saying?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[ChristisKing]

ChristisKing,

I am not jumping around.Instead I am examining the use of Paul's words "all men" in the immediate context.The Lord would have "all men" to be saved and He gave Himself a ransom for "all".

All of a sudden you say nothing about the fact that the meaning of "all men" must be determined by the "context".

Before you said that it is the "context" that must determine the meaning but now you say that we must use the "majority" meaning.

You are jumping around.

You ran to Romans and used "all men" there to define "all men" in Timothy. Why not run to all those other verses where "all men" is defined as specific groups of people, that's the majority definition of "all men?"

I love the context of "all men" in Timothy! You are the one who keeps chopping off the verses before it. Lets see it in context, ok?

1TI 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1TI 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1TI 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1TI 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Here once again the Scriptures are defining "all men" to be a specific group of people like the other 90% of the time Scripture defines "all men." In this case it is to include "kings and all those in authority" as to describe "all types of men."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are jumping around.

I am examining the verse in the immediate "context" but you prove that you want nothing to do with the immediate context.

And you refuse to address the verses that prove that the words of Paul in regard to the Lord Jesus being a "ransom for all" is in regard to universal reconciliation.

You ran to Romans and used "all men" there to define "all men" in Timothy. Why not run to all those other verses where "all men" is defined as specific groups of people, that's the majority definition of "all men?"

Because the verses where "all men" is used as specific groups of people are not in regard to a "ransom" that was for "all".

I love the context of "all men" in Timothy! You are the one who keeps chopping off the verses before it. Lets see it in context, ok?

1TI 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1TI 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1TI 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1TI 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.[/quote]
If you love the context then why did you chop off verse 5?

Here once again the Scriptures are defining "all men" to be a specific group of people like the other 90% of the time Scripture defines "all men." In this case it is to include "kings and all those in authority" as to describe "all types of men."

Originally you said that the term "all men" at 1Tim.2:4 meant "all types of men".Now you say that it refers to a "specific group of people".

You are so confused that you cannot even remember the original meaning that you gave for the word.The terms "all types of men" is not the same thing as a "specific group of people".

Surely you must know this but I suppose that you figure that you must say something in the hope that no one will notice that you are avoiding discussing the "immediate context" which is in reference to the ransom that the Lord Jesus paid that is for "all".

The Scriptures speak of universal reconciliation and that doctrine completely undermines Calvinism.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[lee_merrill]

This may be what Calvinist say they believe but their theology teaches that God doesn't simply see an evil act about to be committed, He makes that evil event take place by His soveriegn decree as does He decree the so called greater good, which is meaningless because there was never any other possible outcome in the Calvinist world view.

In short, this is not the Calvinist view; their declarations to the contrary not withstanding.

Then the OV says God did not know evil might happen?

But the point is about responsibility, and both views must indeed say God has responsibility when evil deeds occur, and also that his responsibility is for the outcome, for the greater good he sees.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[ChristisKing]

1TI 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1TI 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1TI 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1TI 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth

If you love the context then why did you chop off verse 5?

Originally you said that the term "all men" at 1Tim.2:4 meant "all types of men".Now you say that it refers to a "specific group of people".

You are so confused that you cannot even remember the original meaning that you gave for the word.The terms "all types of men" is not the same thing as a "specific group of people". .

Jerry,

I'm not confused about what I'm saying, I am saying "all men" is a specific group of people which includes classes of "people of all types or stations in life." You are saying it represents every single person on earth. I have demonstrated that this is rarely the definition of "all men" and you choose to still use this rare Scriptural definition. It's not confusion that's at issue, it's having to admit you're probably wrong that's seems to be the problem.

Verse 5 and 6 are the same:

1TI 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1TI 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

"All" and "all men" in verses 1, 4 and 6 have the same meaning which is defined in verse 2 to be "kings, and for all that are in authority" or to say all classes or types of men in every station in life. It does not mean every person on earth just like the other 90% of verses that say "all men" do not mean every single person on earth.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,
I'm not confused about what I'm saying, I am saying "all men" is a specific group of people which includes classes of "people of all types or stations in life."

What is that "group" specifically?

 

[ChristisKing]

What is that "group" specifically?

Paul is saying that group represents more than just the poor, the slaves and the under class but the elect was also include kings and those in authority. Therefore the group includes some from every class distinction in life and from every nation. But never does it say it includes every single person on earth. Never.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul is saying that group represents more than just the poor, the slaves and the under class but the elect was also include kings and those in authority. Therefore the group includes some from every class distinction in life and from every nation. But never does it say it includes every single person on earth. Never.

We are speaking about a "specific" group of people.You do know what "specific" means,don't you?

For example you say:

ACT 4:21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.

This means all the men and women who saw the miracle or knew the man who was healed in Jerusalem, it does not mean every single person on earth.

Specific--all who saw the miracle.

Again:

ACT 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

This means all the men and women in the town that only happened to be present, it does not mean every single person on earth.

Again specific--all those in the town who were present when this happened.

To say that the words "all types of people" is a "specific" desigination is wrong.It is a "general" description.

But never does it say it includes every single person on earth. Never.

You will admit that the term "all men" can mean all men everywhere,won't you?

How about this verse?:

""Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"(Ro.5:18).

As I said earlier,I do not think that you will argue that the first use of the term "all men" is not in reference to "all men" everywhere.And since the words "all men" refers to all men everywhere then the second use of that term must also refer to the same thing.

And what do you think that Paul is saying is the "free gift" that comes to "all men" everywhere?

Let me give you a hint:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven"(Col.1:20).

If you said "reconciliation" then you are absolutely correct.And the "blood of His cross" is in regard to the "ransom" that He paid for "all men",i.e. all men everywhere.Therefore we can know that the term "all men" and the word "all" in the following verses are in regard to "all men everywhere":

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time"(1Tim.2:4-6).

It is all so simple if you let the Scriptures be your guide.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[ChristisKing]

You will admit that the term "all men" can mean all men everywhere,won't you?

How about this verse?:

""Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"(Ro.5:18).

As I said earlier,I do not think that you will argue that the first use of the term "all men" is not in reference to "all men" everywhere.And since the words "all men" refers to all men everywhere then the second use of that term must also refer to the same thing.

And what do you think that Paul is saying is the "free gift" that comes to "all men" everywhere?

Let me give you a hint:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven"(Col.1:20).

If you said "reconciliation" then you are absolutely correct.And the "blood of His cross" is in regard to the "ransom" that He paid for "all men",i.e. all men everywhere.Therefore we can know that the term "all men" and the word "all" in the following verses are in regard to "all men everywhere":

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time"(1Tim.2:4-6).

It is all so simple if you let the Scriptures be your guide.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

LOL....it is all so simple when you jump from hither to yon comparing apples to billygoats.

I thought you weren't jumping around? Now you have hopped from 1 Timothy to Romans to Colossians and then back to 1 Timothy again.

Well lets just go to your first leap into Romans. You have truncated the context again. The verse you quoted should at least be quoted with the verse immediately before and after it, as follows:

ROM 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
ROM 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
ROM 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The term "all men" in verse 18 is simply all the men who have "received abundance of grace, the gift of righteousness, justification of life, and made righteous" as verses 17 and 19 so aptly and clearly define the term. All verse 18 is saying, is since by one (Adam) death came upon all men ("the many who have now been granted life); even so by One (Christ) the free gift came upon all these same "many" who are now justified. Therefore the "all men" in verse 18 is simply another specific group of people, "the many elect."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

LOL....it is all so simple when you jump from hither to yon comparing apples to billygoats.

ChristisKing,

It is simple if we examine the very context of the verse that you quote:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"(Ro.5:18).

The first occurance of the term "all men" is in regard to judgment coming to "all men".And previously Paul said that that judgment is "death",and that "death passed upon all men"(v.12).

John Calvin himself makes no distinction of men in regard to the words "all men" in verse twelve.Are you willing to argue that the words "all men" mean anything other than all men everywhere?

The words are obviously in regard to "all men" everywhere.And if that is the meaning of the word in the first instance,then that has to be the same meaning of the same exact term when is used later in the same sentence:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"(Ro.5:18).

The "free gift" that came on all men everywhere is "reconciliation"":

""And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven"(Col.1:20).

I thought you weren't jumping around? Now you have hopped from 1 Timothy to Romans to Colossians and then back to 1 Timothy again.

Yes,I went from 1Timothy to Romans but I have a very good reason to do so.The verse we are discussing at 1Timothy is in regard to the "ransom" that the Lord paid,and whether or not that ransom was only for all "types" of men or for all men everywhere.And the verses that I quoted from Romans are speaking about that "ransom" and it tells us that the reconciliation provided by that "ransom" comes to "all men".

The term "all men" in verse 18 is simply all the men who have "received abundance of grace, the gift of righteousness, justification of life, and made righteous" as verses 17 and 19 so aptly and clearly define the term.

No,it says that the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

In this verse the Greek word translated "unto" carries the meaning of direction and tendency of grace.The "free gift" came upon all men everywhere,and the tendency of that grace is justification of life.

It is not that there is mercy for only an elect,but that God's attitude to this world is grace.The free gift is for "all men" everywhere:

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"(Titus2:11).

The "ransom" was not just for the elect,but instead for the sins of "all men" everywhere,the "whole world":

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"(1Jn.2:2).

So in order to interpret Romans 5:18 in the way you do you are forced to say that the first use of the term "all men" means something entirely different when Paul uses that same term later in the same sentence.

You are forced to say that the verse that speaks of the grace of God that bringeth salvation having appeared to "all men" only appeared to "some" men.And you must say that the "sins of the whole world" means the sins of the whole world of the elect.

You make a big thing out of the fact that I go from verse to verse,but as I said,I have a good reason to.We are discussing whether the "ransom" was for all men everywhere,ot just for "all types" of men.And the verses I keep jumping to are speaking of the "ransom" and they are saying who that ransom is in regard to.

Besides,it is much better to jump from one verse to another than it is to "edit" the words of Scripture when those words do not match your ideas.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[ChristisKing]

ChristisKing,

It is simple if we examine the very context of the verse that you quote:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"(Ro.5:18).

The first occurance of the term "all men" is in regard to judgment coming to "all men".And previously Paul said that that judgment is "death",and that "death passed upon all men"(v.12).

The words are obviously in regard to "all men" everywhere.And if that is the meaning of the word in the first instance,then that has to be the same meaning of the same exact term when is used later in the same sentence:

So in order to interpret Romans 5:18 in the way you do you are forced to say that the first use of the term "all men" means something entirely different when Paul uses that same term later in the same sentence.

You are forced to say that the verse that speaks of the grace of God that bringeth salvation having appeared to "all men" only appeared to "some" men.And you must say that the "sins of the whole world" means the sins of the whole world of the elect.

Besides,it is much better to jump from one verse to another than it is to "edit" the words of Scripture when those words do not match your ideas.

All I am saying Jerry is you are jumping around from NT book to book, and you are. Now you are jumping to Titus and 1 John. But I am focusing on each verse that you're bringing up one at a time. Let's stay on Romans 5:18 until we have fully exhausted it's interpretation.

I am suggesting that the first use of "all men" is defined by the second use of "all men" and I am also saying that you need the verses immediately before and after it, which you have omitted again, in order to understand it's meaning in context.

ROM 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
ROM 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
ROM 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

It seems as if the emphasis in verse 18 is on "the one" giving death and life. Paul is teaching that "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." The many are the elect, many is not everyone!

By "one death reigned," but "they that receive grace shall reign in life by one." They that receive grace and life are the elect, not everyone!

The second use of "all men" in verse 18 clearly states that it is those men who have rec'd "justification of life." Only the elect receive justification unto life, therefore the second use of "all men" in verse 18 is the elect only, not everyone!

Not we have 3 instances of how the Holy Spirit is clearly and specifically referring to the "elect only," in the very verse you are quoting and the immediate verses before and after your verse. Now you want to jump to Col., Titus, 1 John and 1 Tim. to tell us that He suddenly switches gears 1 out of the 4 times to all of sudden change the subject to refer to everyone who has every lived or will live on the planet earth... :chuckle:

I'm sorry I can't do that. I'll go with the majority again on this one, and I don't need to jump around from book to book to find the majority. The first use of "all men" must mean what the second use of "all men" means in the same verse and who verse 17 and verse 19 are clearly referring too and that is "the elect."

Therefore the "all men" first used in verse 18 is defined in verse 17, in verse 19 and the second "all men" in verse 18. If you read it like this the verse makes much more sense, is consistent and flows smoothly with the immediate verses before and after it and is consistent and in context with the entire 5th Chapter of Romans. Now that's in context!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

All I am saying Jerry is you are jumping around from NT book to book, and you are. Now you are jumping to Titus and 1 John. But I am focusing on each verse that you're bringing up one at a time. Let's stay on Romans 5:18 until we have fully exhausted it's interpretation.

ChristisKing,

Why do you question the way that I attempt to prove that the "ransom" was for "all men" everywhere by using different epistles?

Would you question Paul for doing the same exact thing?:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures"(Acts17:2).

I am suggesting that the first use of "all men" is defined by the second use of "all men" and I am also saying that you need the verses immediately before and after it, which you have omitted again, in order to understand it's meaning in context.

Let us go to the first use of the term "all men" in this discourse:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"(Ro.5:12).

Does this not refer to "all men" everywhere?

Of course it does.Earlier in the very same epistle Paul said:

"...for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one"(Ro.3:9,10).

That is why Paul says that "all the world" is guilty before God (Ro.3:19),and he bases this on the fact that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).

The "all" of which Paul is talking about is not just in regard to the "elect",but instead he is talking about "all men" everywhere.Therefore,the first time Paul uses the term "all men" it is in reference to "all men" everywhere.And if that is the meaning the first time he uses that term it follows that that is the same meaning at Romans 5:18--all men everwhere.

It seems as if the emphasis in verse 18 is on "the one" giving death and life. Paul is teaching that "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." The many are the elect, many is not everyone!

If the "many" are the elect,then how do you explain the following words of the Lord Jesus and Paul in regard to who the "ransom" is for:

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many"(Mt.20:28).

If "many" refers to the "elect",then what is the meaning of "all" in the following verse?:

"Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time"(1Tim.2:6).

So if you are right then we must believe that the first time Paul used the words "all men" that he was just referring to the "elect" even though it is clear that Paul is speaking of "all men" everywhere.And I await your answer to my question in regad to the meaning of "all" in regard to the ransom.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[godrulz]

Reading 'elect' back into many passages is sheer eisegesis to support a preconceived theology. It is indefensible grammatically and contextually.