Posting #14
1
Timothy 4:10 As An Example
Evangelical Inclusivism
is the teaching that although Jesus is the only Savior, nevertheless,
salvation is possible through Him even among those who have never
heard the gospel during their lifetime on earth. Biblical Universalism*
is a type of Inclusivism. There are those who believe that this
happens so rarely that they see no need for a biblical or theological
justification for such occurances. Dr. Billy Graham and others
are among such persons (Posting # 18).
Dr. Clark Pinnock considers Inclusivism
to be quite common. However, he is not able to accept Roman
Catholic Inclusivism because he is a Protestant. He is uncomfortable
with Evangelical Inclusivism because he is an Arminian (Posting #
13). Therefore Pinnock generously suggests,"I think that any
theological tradition can find a way to entertain an optimism of salvation
on a scriptural basis" (Note # 1, D, P. 43, below). This appears
to be a relativism that suggests that one can find whatever he or
she wishes to find in the Scriptures.
THE
"UNIVERSALISTIC" TEXTS ILLEGITIMATELY RESTRICTED
Whether such an approach
to the Scriptures is valid or not, neither the Arminian nor the traditional
Calvinistic understanding of so-called "universalistic"
texts can serve as a biblical basis for Inclusivism. This is
so because Arminians do not recognize the "certain-to-be-realized"
salvation element of these texts and Calvinists reject the reference
to "all men" in these passages (Posting #2).
Consider, for example, how Arminian
and Calvinistic theologians distort 1 Tim. 4:10 in order to maintain
their illegitimate restrictions:
1
Tim. 4:10, "Who is the Savior of all men,
and
especially of those who believe."
THE
WORD "SAVIOR"
"God is 'the Savior of all men [potentially], and especially
of those who believe [actually]' (1 Tim. 4:10). This is the path I
will take to explain how the unevangelized gain access to God and
are finally saved," says Pinnock (Note #1, D, P. 158).
Where did Pinnock get this "[potentially]"? It came from
neither the immediate nor the extended context of the Bible. It came
from the 400-year Arminian tradition of arbitrarily never permitting
the word "Savior," in the so-called "universalistic"
texts, to refer to an "actual, certain to be realized" salvation.
The fear is that these texts would then teach that all persons will
be actually be saved. To avoid this problem they must arbitrarily
insert the word "potentially."
Traditional Calvinist exegetes
have just as much trouble with the word "Savior" in 1 Tim.
4:10. To simply claim that "all men" refers to "all
the elect", as they claim in regard to all the other so-called
"universalistic" texts, will not do in this one instance.
To make the claim that in the first phrase the "all men"
are "all the elect" and to also say that "those who
believe" in the second part of this text is a reference to "the
elect" will not do. The text then says, that God "is
the Savior of all the elect, and especially of the elect."
To avoid such nonsense traditional Calvinists are compelled, in this
one instance, to change the theological content of the word "Savior."
In the Old Testament the word
"savior" is applied to mere men as well as to God and is
used to depict various kinds of "saving." There is an enrichment
of the word "Savior" in the New Testament. In the 22 other
places where the word "Savior" is used in the New Testament
it is applied exclusively to God or Jesus Christ. In each of
these other 22 instances it unquestionably means "Savior from
sin." Traditional Calvinists are forced to say that in this one
instance the word "Savior" means "the general benefactor,
the preserver of earthly life, the helper" for all men, and he
is the "Savior from sin" for " those who believe."
THE
WORD "ESPECIALLY"
Both the Calvinist and the Arminian
traditions bend the word "especially"out of shape. "Especially"
means "more of the same." It is used TEN times in the New
Testament. It never speaks of a change in the kind or the effect of
the action to which it refers. It invariably connotes an intensity
of, concentration on or awareness of the same action.
Calvinists should recognize that a "general benefactor and sustainer
of earthly life" is not the same kind of savior as a "Savior
from sin." Arminians should admit that "potential"
Savior from sin does not have the same effect as an "actual"
Savior from sin, any more than one who desires and unsuccessfully
attempts to save a drowning victim has the same effect as one who
actually saves a person from drowning.
A typical use of "especially"
is found in 2 Tim. 4:13: "When you come bring the cloak that
I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all [especially]
the parchments." Paul did not intend a different kind or effect
of the action that should be taken regarding the parchments as would
be taken for the cloak and books. He meant "be aware of,"
"concentrate on" bringing the parchments. You can see the
valid use of the word "especially" in the other NINE passages
where "especially" is used: Acts 20:38; 25:26; 26:3; Gal.
6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 5:8, 17; Titus 1:10; Phm. 16 and 2 Peter
2:10.
The traditional maneuverings
of both Arminians and Calvinists, in their treatment of 1 Tim. 4:10,
appear to be exceedingly strange even to the point of silliness.
It is futile to distort the meaning, of 1 Tim. 4:10 and the other
so-called "universalistic" texts, in a vain attempt to refute
the teaching of Absolute Universalism. First Tim. 4:10, like all the
other so-called "universalistic" texts, speaks of a certain-to-be-realized
salvation as Calvinist have consistently maintained andit does so
in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed.
How long before the church at
large will recognize that ever since days of Pelagius the "central
biblical theme about God's love for the whole world" has been
"obscured" (Note # 1, D, Pinnock, P. 43). This historical
wrong turn has, after the Reformation, compelled Arminians to distort
all the so-called "universalistic" passages in one way and
the Calvinists in another way (Posting # 2).
How is 1 Tim. 4:10 to be understood?
"We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of
all men [accepting this phrase as we accept the other "universalistic"
texts, keeping in mind the exceptions that are necessarily imposed
on it from the broader context of Scripture (see Posting # 3)], and
especially of those who believe [they are aware of, they concentrate
on, they rejoice in, this salvation from sin]."
Copies to:
John
Sanders
Clark Pinnock
Ronald H. Nash
Note
#1) All page references are to the following books that are listed
in chronological order of their dates of publication):
A.
Neal Punt Unconditional Good News, (Eerdmans, 1980)
B. Neal Punt What's Good About The Good News?, (Northland
Books, 1988)
C. Dr. John Sanders, No Other Name, (Eerdmans, 1991)D.
Dr.
Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy, (Zondervan, 1992)
E. Dr. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, (Zondervan,
1994)
F.
Neal Punt So Also In Christ, (Northland Books, 2002)
The
books by Sanders, Pinnock and Nash (especially Pinnock's book) present
compelling refutation of "pluralism." The teaching that
all religions are equally paths of salvation.
Note
#2) Practical Christianity, Edited by LaVonne Neff et al, Tyndale
House, 1987, P. 22.
