Lesson Outline for 1 Timothy 2:4

Austin Brown

[The following is intended for a Sunday School class at McIlwain Presbyterian Church]

1 Timothy 2:1-6

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” (1 Tim 2:1-6)

Why do some (namely Hyper) Calvinists1 balk at the thought that God desires the salvation of the non-elect?

The reasoning:

  1. If God desires something, His desire will come to pass; nothing can thwart His will.
  2. The non-elect will not be saved.
  3. Therefore, it cannot be said that God desires the salvation of the non-elect, since He doesn’t save them; for if He desired it they would be saved.
  4. Therefore, God does not desire the salvation of the non-elect.
  5. Therefore, 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot refer to the non-elect.
  6. Therefore, the interpreter should look for a way of understanding the passage that does not result in a contradiction.
  7. Therefore, the interpretive approach should be to understand the phrase “all people” as referring to types or groups of people, rather than all individuals without exception.
    • Since Paul singles out a category of people, namely, kings and all those in authority (vs 2), we feel we are on stable ground to correlate this conceptually to vs 4.
    • The word “all” has all kinds of shades of meaning and limitations depending on contextual restraints.
    • Additionally, it would be absurd for us to pull out a phone book and start praying for every individual in the world.

8. Thus, the passage means, dynamically translated, “who desires all sorts of people (that is not just Jews but also Gentiles of every kind) to be saved…” Or, more specifically in terms of their theological concerns, “who desires some of all sorts of people to be saved…”

And sometimes:

  1. Arminianism affirms God’s universal saving will.
  2. I am a Calvinist and not an Arminian.
  3. Therefore, I dare not affirm God’s universal saving will, lest I wear that abominable jersey.

However, it should be noted:

First, premise (1) is faulty. The Scriptures require us to distinguish between different senses of God’s will. Theologians have often described this as God’s will of desire, or wish, or precept, or command, and God’s will of decree. Thus, there is no contradiction in saying that God desires the salvation of the non-elect (in one sense) and that He does not desire the salvation of the non-elect (in another sense).

Second, point (7) does not help their cause, since the appeal to groups/types of people doesn’t exclude the individuals who comprise the group. Germans are made up of individual Germans. An American is any individual citizen of America. Thus, groups are comprised of individuals who share certain distinguishing characteristics. And so even if Paul is simply thinking of the inclusion of Gentiles as a generic category, what individual Gentile could we point to and say, “Hey, you’re not included.” Jews + Gentiles = all of humanity.

Third, since their theological assumptions compel them to understand “all people” in a generic sense- in order to avoid saying that “all people” refers to each and every person- they have to read the passage as saying “who desires some of all sorts of people to be saved.” In effect, they have to hear the passage as saying that God only desires the elect to be saved. But of course that is not what Paul says. He simply says “all people.” Only with the clearest evidence should we take such a broad statement in such a restricted sense.

Fourth, the phone book objection is ill-founded. Paul’s inclusive language is meant to be taken in a universally pedestrian sense, which is to say that whatever king or authority we find ourselves under, they fall within the scope of Paul’s instructions. We can’t point to some local leader and say, “Nope, not that one!”

Fifth, the immediate context bolsters the universality of “all people” when Paul goes on to ground his injunction in the mediatorial scope of Christ, which is “between God and men.” “Men” surely refers to humanity as a whole, since Christ is the only way for any man to be right with the Father.

1 Timothy 4:10 likewise supports the concept, since Christ is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe. Since believers comprise a subset of humanity, the non-elect have to fall within the scope of “all people.” The narrowing and particularization of emphasis demands it.

Sixth, The truth is that the vast majority of the Reformed throughout history have maintained the well-meant offer of the Gospel, thereby affirming God’s universal saving will. This is because the Scriptures are clear on the point.

Historically speaking, Hyper-Calvinists are the only ones who have outright denied the well-meant offer. It would be an odd twist of history to learn that essentially everyone, across basically all Christian groups, have gotten this wrong.

For some resources, see the following:

Seventh, there are plenty of other passages that fundamentally teach the same thing (John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11, Rom 2:4, etc). As such, it isn’t as if 1 Timothy 2:4 stands as an isolated thought devoid of conceptual support. So instead of trying to explain all the passages away, in order to avoid the well-meant offer, perhaps it would be better for the detractor to ask himself why he keeps kicking against the goads.

1 Though here it should be noted that some High Calvinists who do in fact affirm God’s universal saving will (or the well-meant offer) nevertheless deny that this particular passage (1 Timothy 2:4) supports the doctrine. Here I cannot help but wonder why someone so inclined towards the view wouldn’t take this passage at face value. What other passages more clearly affirm the doctrine to the exclusion of this one?

A Few Quotes for Kicks and Giggles:

Charles Spurgeon:

1 Timothy 2:4

“What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” say they,—”that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.” Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, “God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

Charles Hodge on 1 Timothy 2:4:

“God desires the salvation of all men. This means 1st, just what is said when the Scriptures declare that God is good; that he is merciful and gracious, and ready to forgive; that he is good to all, and his tender mercies over his works. He is kind to the unthankful and to the evil. This goodness or benevolence of God is not only declared but revealed in his works, in his providence, and in the work of redemption. 2nd, It means what is said in Ezekiel 33:11, ‘As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked’, and in Ezekiel 18:23. Also Lamentations 3:33, ‘For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.’ It means what Christ taught in the parable of the prodigal son, and of the lost sheep and the lost piece of money; and is taught by his lament over Jerusalem.

All these passages teach that God delights in the happiness of his creatures, and that when he permits them to perish, or inflicts evil upon them, it is from some inexorable necessity; that is, because it would be unwise and wrong to do otherwise. His relation is that of a benevolent sovereign in punishing crime, or of a tender judge in passing sentence on offenders, or, what is the familiar representation of Scripture, that of a father who deals with his children with tenderness, yet with wisdom and according to the dictates of right.”

OPC report on the subject of the free offer of the Gospel:

“It would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men. The Committee elected by the Twelfth General Assembly in its report to the Thirteenth General Assembly said, “God not only delights in the penitent but is also moved by the riches of his goodness and mercy to desire the repentance and salvation of the impenitent and reprobate.”

R. B. Kuiper:

“When the Reformed theology describes the universal offer of salvation as sincere, it does not merely mean that the human preacher, who obviously cannot distinguish with certainty between the elect and the non-elect, must for that reason issue to all men indiscriminately a most sincere offer of eternal life and an equally sincere invitation to accept that offer. It most assuredly means that, but it means incomparably more. The Reformed theology insists that God Himself, who has determined from eternity who are to be saved and who are not, and therefore distinguishes infallibly between the elect whom He designed to save by the death of Christ and the reprobate whom He did not design to save, makes on the ground of the universally suitable and sufficient atonement a most sincere, bona fide, offer of eternal life, not only to the elect but to all men, urgently invites them to life everlasting, and expresses the ardent desire that every person to whom this offer and this invitation come accept the offer and comply with the invitation.”

 

Leave a comment