tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post111455952475177407..comments2023-10-03T06:59:25.428-10:00Comments on The Joshua Victor Theory: Calvin and Luther on Universal Salvation: 1 Timothy 2:4 (Part 1)The Joshua Victor Theoryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03684296967627057287noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1115955076973047152005-05-12T17:31:00.000-10:002005-05-12T17:31:00.000-10:00Well said Eric. At some point I do intend to find ...Well said Eric. At some point I do intend to find out the answer to the exegetical question of how the Hebrews understood 'many.' Until then...The Joshua Victor Theoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03684296967627057287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1115955000267482732005-05-12T17:30:00.000-10:002005-05-12T17:30:00.000-10:00Micah, there is never any question whether God wil...Micah, <BR/>there is never any question whether God will accomplish His purpose. If there were, salvation would constantly be in doubt. And the Isaiah 46:10 passage clearly states that God will accomplish His purpose. What precisely is that purpose in all things is not entirely revealed to us. We have only been given revelation of what we need to know. And as the 1 Tim. 2:4 passage reveals God's desire for all men to be saved, we must also affirm the truth of that passage. The solution is not to choose one passage and *absolutize* it over the other. Rather they must remain in the Scriptural tension in which they are given to us. God desires all men to be saved: this is true. But why is it not part of His purpose that all ARE saved? That is ultimately just a restatement of the unanswerable question.The Joshua Victor Theoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03684296967627057287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1115836891702592092005-05-11T08:41:00.000-10:002005-05-11T08:41:00.000-10:00"Many" doesn't necessitate "all," but it certainly..."Many" doesn't necessitate "all," but it certainly doesn't rule it out.<BR/><BR/>"All," on the other hand, definitely does rule out "Not all."Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1115824545504981692005-05-11T05:15:00.000-10:002005-05-11T05:15:00.000-10:00Really interesting stuff here. I think it's import...Really interesting stuff here. I think it's important for us Lutherans to be honest that while Luther was not a "five-point Calvinist" he also was not exactly in line with what the Formula of Concord decided on this issue, even though the Formula recommends his <I>Bondage of the Will</I> as a key resource. For myself, I see both the Formula and Luther's views (explored in a post <A HREF="http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2005/05/here-we-stand-nostalgia-trip.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> as alternative, equally Lutheran, solutions to a problem which is ultimately insoluble.CPAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06803551934971285722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1115687582486181322005-05-09T15:13:00.000-10:002005-05-09T15:13:00.000-10:00When God says in Isaiah, "I will accomplish all My...When God says in Isaiah, "I will accomplish all My good pleasure..." and then in 1 Tim. 2:4 "...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..."<BR/><BR/>How, why, does God not to accomplish what He desires?Lockheedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433104440503646253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1114900470530546262005-04-30T12:34:00.000-10:002005-04-30T12:34:00.000-10:00Stuart, that's an excellent question, and one that...Stuart, that's an excellent question, and one that I've been meaning to research for some time. Unfortunately I don't have the resources available here to study the question. The question hinges on what 'many' means in passages such as Mark 10:45, "the Son of Man came...to give His life as a ransom for many." I've actually heard it said on more than one occasion (and this is what I need to research) that the Hebraic concept of 'many' wasn't like we use it today, where it means (more or less) a significant part of a greater whole. Rather, in their usage, 'many' was an indefinite number representing a great or limitless amount. I believe that Scaer's Christology makes a passing reference to this, and I believe it is also the reason why Luther interpreted passages as such. Needless to say, if this is correct, then Luther's interpretation of 'many' as universal would be correct also. I have to get to a couple of Greek and Hebrew theological dictionaries to check that out.The Joshua Victor Theoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03684296967627057287noreply@blogger.com