Search

You searched for 'Commentary'

I've found 64 results!

1 Timothy 2:4 & Titus 2:11, 'desires all people to be saved'

Simon Wartanian | 20,934 views | 2,692 words | 0:14:11 hours | 07 September 2014 16:04

...trong, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Timothy 2:1-6, ESV)

(For a better and a more recent defense of 1Tim 2:4 see here.)

This is one of the “Arminian Big Three” which you will get almost in every conversation about Calvinism in real life or online. Usually verses 3-4 are just quoted to make the case that God wants to save every single individual. The question is, does “all” in context really mean “every single individual in the world”? Or is this talking about God’s desire not His sovereign decree?

Will of Desire interpretation

There are some people who understand this passage and other passages like 2 Pet 3:9 to refer to God’s will of desire. God’s will of desire being, God’s desire that people should not murder, lie, steal, commit adultery or have other gods before Him (Ex 20), but He doesn’t decree that it should be done so. It is also called His will of precept.

So God’s will of desire refers to the things that God has not decreed in His sovereign plan before the foundation of the world, yet desires. In this interpretation, God would desire that all be saved, but He has not decreed that all should be saved, because He wants to show the full measure of His glory (Rom 9:22-24). I don’t find this interpretation compelling and I believe the following interpretation is more compelling.

The “all kinds of people” interpretation

The major Reformed interpretation takes the position that the word “all” in this context means “all kinds of people,” not every single individual, why do we say that? Because there are times in Scripture when “all” is used in the sense of “every single individual in the world”, but there are times which it isn’t used like that, but limited according to the context. Let’s look at a few verses, shall we? The portion we’re going to look at is in Titus 2. Here we see that Paul is telling Timothy to teach “sound doctrine.” Then we see him list types/groups of people:

2. Older men are to be sober-minded…

3. Older women likewise…

4. so train the young women to love their husbands and children

6. …urge the younger men

9. Slaves

11. For the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation for all people,

12. training us to renounce ungodliness…

13. waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

14. who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

We see that Paul in verse 11 says that salvation has been brought for all people, but considering the context we can safely say that it means “all kinds of people,” since in the previous verses he was talking about kinds of people (men, women, slaves, etc..). We can reasonably say that what Paul is saying through “all people” is “all kinds of people,” (as we understand that in our individualistic society) just as those kinds whom he mentioned in the passing verses. Further, verse 14 makes it clear that God has redeemed “us” and that Jesus has purified for Himself a people, not all people, but a people.

Wh...

Review of Dean Davis' The High King of Heaven on Amillennialism

Simon Wartanian | 17,234 views | 8,095 words | 0:42:03 hours | 13 April 2015 23:31

Review Book Review Dean Davis The High King Of Heaven Amillennialism Eschatology Reformed Eschatology

...>Soli Deo Gloria

Footnotes

^ Visit his blog where he has a lot of good stuff, audio teachings, charts, diagrams on Amillennialism at https://amillennialism.wordpress.com
^ See my Commentary on chapter 1 of the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. https://www.thecalvinist.net/post/1689-Baptist-Confession-Chapter-1:-Of-The-Holy-Scriptures/1020
^ Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, pages 451-465.
^ The Bible and the Future, pages 229-238
^ Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek Definitions, G3952
^ Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek Definitions, G602
^ Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek Definitions, G2015

...

A Review Of Robert Martin's The Christian Sabbath

Simon Wartanian | 5,764 views | 553 words | 0:02:49 hours | 21 July 2016 16:43

Paul Martin The Christian Sabbath The Lord's Day SundayFourth Commandment Book Review Reformed Baptist

...and was not frequently used for Sunday. Rather, from the earliest times, the expression "the Lord's Day" was used for the first day of the week on which Christ rose.

Finally, he moves on in the last part (3) to teach us how we should observe the Sabbath. He is careful in his suggestions and what He may say and deduce from God's Word. His desire is not to bind consciences where God has not bound them, but carefully give guidelines and suggestions.

Overall, I very much enjoyed reading this book and I used it a lot in my own study for the 1689 Baptist Confession's chapter 22 on the Sabbath (sections 7-8). It is detailed, it is biblical and it is written in a loving and respectful tone. What more can we expect? Get it and read it already!

...

A Review of O. Palmer Robertson's The Israel of God

Simon Wartanian | 10,627 views | 3,313 words | 0:17:02 hours | 19 January 2017 22:25

Book Review O. Palmer Robertson Israel Of God Eschatology Covenant Theology Dispensationalism Kingdom Of God

...d (Heb 4:11).

Dr. Robertson traces the wilderness motif throughout the Old Testament and New Testament.

The Coming of the Kingdom

Although God is King over all things and His kingdom rules over all (e.g. Ps 103:19), yet “a more specific manifestation of his authority is displayed in the kingdom of his Messiah” (p. 113). The Kingdom came with the coming of its King.

This was likewise a very helpful chapter wherein his Amillennialism and Two-Staged Kingdom theology showed, which is good! See here for more on Amillennialism and the Two-Staged Kingdom of God.

In this chapter Dr. Robertson shows the important and crucial place of Israel in the plan of God as related to the coming of the Kingdom and how Scripture connects the coming of the Kingdom with Israel. But as argued earlier and continually throughout the book, the Israel of God is not defined by ethnicity, but by faith in the Messiah.

There is a very helpful discussion on the Kingdom of God in Acts as it relates to the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6. He shows how the New Testament vision of the Kingdom is that it is spiritual in the present age and non-consummate, but it will have its consummation at the Second Coming of its King. The Kingdom comes in two stages and no more. What some (e.g. Dean Davis) have called the Kingdom of the Son and the Kingdom of the Father. There was also a helpful discussion on Revelation and an Amillennial interpretation of chapter 20.

Romans 11

Chapter six deals with the question of Israel’s future. Dr. Robertson maintains that ethnic Israelites are and will always be part of God’s people and in God’s plan, but he denies that there will be distinctive future for ethnic Israel, as envision by Dispensationalists for example. There will never be a distinction between believing Jews and Gentiles ever again. Both are on an equal footing and both are together heirs to the promises of God in Christ.

Dr. Robertson stresses throughout this chapter how Paul is actually concerned with what is to happen with Israel in the present and no so much in the future. He stresses how Paul is seeking to save some Israelites now and how he is seeking to save them through his ministry and not at some future date (Rom 11:5, 7, 14-15, 23, 30-31). All this emphasis is right and warranted by the context and it was helpful to have that pointed out because some act as if Romans 11 largely or wholly has to do with the future. Dr. Robertson shows that the emphasis of Romans 11 itself is upon the present time. He rightly notes that the “references in Romans 11 to God’s present intention for Israel are pervasive and are highly significant for the total thrust of the chapter” (p. 171). This point must not be overlooked.

It is not the purpose of God to save every Jew. He has always had the freedom to pick and choose according to His sovereign pleasure and He has never bound Himself to save every ethnic Israelite. The mystery of God in this is that the rejection of Israel serves the purpose to bring Gentiles in. But even this is for the purpose of moving elect ethnic Israelites to jealously so that they would cling to their Messiah and in this way the world will be blessed (Rom 11:11-15).

Then there is a very interesting discussion on the most controversial verses in the chapter, namely, vv. 25-26. I will make this short. Dr. Robertson argues that the “partial hardening” (Rom 11:25) means that a part of Israel after the flesh has been hardened, i.e., n...