Cont...
3. Therefore what God has inspired (breathed) in I Tim. 2:4, "SHALL go forth…," It is has gone forth for nearly two thousand years and is going forth over the whole internet on this very printed page that you are reading. It also "SHALL accomplish that which I please…," Is the word "will" weaker than the word "please"? And finally, it "SHALL prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
So here we have just one more Scripture that says God, SHALL, SHALL, SHALL, while at the same time Traitors of the Truth tell us that God, shall NOT, shall NOT, shall NOT!
So again I ask, if God only "pleases" that something prosper in the word that He sent fort to accomplish, shall it "prosper" or shall it not "prosper?" Theologians say if God only "pleases" that all men be saved, then THEY WILL NOT ALL BE SAVED, but God says if He "pleases" to do something, "…IT SHALL PROSPER in the thing whereto I sent it." Who ya gonna believe: men or GOD?
More proof: I Tim. 2:4 says that God "wills" that all mankind be saved. What determines God’s will? Answer:
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him Who works [operates] ALL THINGS after the COUNSEL of his own WILL" (Eph. 1:11).
Now then, will God’s "counsel" stand? Answer:
"There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the COUNSEL of the LORD, that SHALL STAND" (Prov. 19:21).
Will God’s "will" be done both in the heavens and on the earth? YES:
"Our Father Who art in the heavens, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10).
More proof: When God speaks something, is He so weak and incapable as mortal men who make great boasts and are unable to accomplish their boast?
"God is NOT a man, that He should LIE [do we think God LIES when He says that He WILL save all mankind in I Tim. 2:4?]; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not DO IT? Or has He spoken [as in I Tim. 2:4 and many other places], and shall He not MAKE IT GOOD?" (Numbers 23:19).
Well? Those of you who contend with your Maker: "Hath God SAID" in I Tim. 2:4 that He "WILL have all men to be saved?" Well then, "SHALL HE NOT DO IT?" (Num. 23:19). Has "He [God] SPOKEN" in I Tim. 2:4 and many other places, that He "…WILL have all men to be saved?" Well then, "…shall He NOT MAKE IT GOOD?" (Num. 23:19).
More proof:
"…Let God be TRUE [Who says He "WILL save ALL MANKIND"], but every man a LIAR [who says He WILL NOT "save ALL MANKIND"]!
More proof:
"Remember the former things of old: for I am GOD, and there is none else; I am GOD, and there is none like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel SHALL STAND, and WILL DO ALL MY PLEASURE [as in I Tim. 2:4 and everywhere else]:
Calling a ravenous bird from the east [Cyrus?], the man that executes my counsel [just as the king of Assyria] from a far country: yea, I have SPOKEN IT [as in I Tim. 2:4 and everywhere else] I WILL ALSO BRING IT TO PASS [as also in saving all mankind]; I have PURPOSED IT [as also in saving all mankind] I WILL ALSO DO IT" (Isaiah 46:9-11).
God says, "I WILL DO IT," and He will also do EVERYTHING ELSE that He has , said, declared, spoken, desired, counseled, willed, decreed, or pleased in His Word!
By the way, God NEVER, EVER "wishes" or "hopes" for ANYTHING! He "desires" things that absolutely are certain to come about, but God never wishes or hopes for things that may or may not come about! The very thought of God "hoping" for something, blasphemes His sovereignty!
Now then, how many of my readers still believe that God will NOT save all mankind as He says He "WILLS" in I Tim. 2:4? It is foolish and stupid to insist that God will not perform and fulfill and do His Own WILL in I Tim. 2:4. I have PROVEN it by the Scriptures. I have given you the absolute proof from both the etymology of words and the many Scriptures regarding the fulfillment of God’s will, pleasures, word, desires, etc., etc., etc. Anyone who denies that I Tim. 2:4 will be fulfilled also must deny HUNDREDS of other Scriptures as well. But yet I sense in my spirit a dozen carnal minds out there in computerland that are anguishing over a new approach to prove that I Tim. 2:4 will never be accomplished and that this verse is at best a never-to-be-fulfilled pipe dream of our Great Creator God and Saviour.
Consider this: Suppose I Tim. 2:3-4 did not say what is in our Bibles, but suppose it said the following: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will NOT have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
Would not every single detractor who teaches that God will NOT save all humanity then use this Scripture to PROVE THAT GOD WILL NOT SAVE ALL MEN? YES OF COURSE THEY WOULD; YOU KNOW THEY WOULD! They would be delighted to show from the Scriptures a statement saying that God "WILL NOT" save all men? And this Scripture would then be the one most profound statements in all Scripture to back up their doctrine that all men will NOT be saved. This would be their "proof text" that God most assuredly WILL NOT (pardon my redundancy here, but I am attempting to make a point of major consequence) save all men.
Now then, the ONLY difference between the fabricated verse above and the real verse found in all Bibles in I Tim. 2:3-4 is the addition of the word "not." So if the addition of the word "NOT" would prove that God will not save all men, then the deletion of the word "NOT" would have to prove that God WILL save all men—this is axiomatic! So if this verse had said that God "WILL NOT" save all men, then it would definitely mean that all men will NOT be saved. I don’t think there is a theologian alive who would deny that! But here is the unbelievable irony of their teaching: since it says that God "WILL have all men to be saved" (according to theologians), this phrase also MEANS THAT GOD WILL NOT SAVE ALL MEN! Excuse me, but am I missing something here?
When Christians don’t want to believe that God will save all humanity, it doesn’t matter what God says. They will believe what they want, not what the Bible says.
If anyone believes that God’s statement that He "will" save all mankind really means that He "will NOT" save all mankind, then maybe they had better click off this site and listen to some Jack Van Impe tapes prophesying that according to his newly revealed knowledge of the length of a Biblical generation, Jesus Christ will return to set up His kingdom in the year 1996! Yes, you saw that correctly, I said NINETEEN NINETY-SIX! In 1990, when I heard Jack say that, I PROPHESIED that Jack didn’t have a clue as to what he was talking about. It is now, 2003! I’ll say this, however, Mr. Van Impe certainly has a lot of Scripture verses memorized—now if he only he knew their meaning. (Excuse my little diversion—just trying to relax your intense concentration for a moment with a little humor).
Imagine if I Tim. 2:3-4 really did say that "God will NOT save all men," and then I would try to argue (using the same stupid scholarship as theologians use) that this verse doesn’t really mean that God will NOT save all men, but that it means He only "DESIRES" that all men "NOT" be saved when in reality they WILL all be saved, even if God were to say He "will NOT" save all men. Would not my detractors try to laugh me to scorn over such inane reasoning? OF COURSE THEY WOULD! YOU KNOW THEY WOULD. EVEN THEY KNOW THEY WOULD. Well, guess what? The word "NOT" is NOT in this verse. So God really "WILL save ALL men!"
Here then is true Christian scholarship: If God will NOT save all men, then He will NOT save all men, and if God WILL save all men, then He also will NOT save all men!! Do you see now why it has become popular to say that: "You can prove ANYTHING from the Bible?" And HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Christians do not see a problem with kind of inane and insane reasoning! Does anyone think that the word "HYPOCRISY" is too strong to describe the way God’s word is slanderously perverted to maintain such evil doctrines as eternal torment in a lake of fire for those whom theologians say God won’t save even though God says He WILL save them?
Do you still believe that the "lake of fire" contradicts I Tim. 2:4, and that when God says He WILL save all men, what He really means is that He will NOT save all men, but will rather torture MOST men for all eternity in a lake of real fire? Is that what you still believe?
Let’s not neglect the first part of the sentence which begins in verse 3 of I Tim. 2:
"For this is GOOD and ACCEPTABLE in the sight of God our Saviour…"
That God will "have ALL men to be saved" is both GOOD and ACCEPTABLE in God’s sight. These verses do NOT say: "For this is GOOD and ACCEPTABLE in the sight of God our Saviour; Who WILL NOT have all men to be saved, and WILL NOT have all men come unto the knowledge of the truth" now does it? Theologians tell us that the reality of this Scripture is that all men WILL NOT come into a knowledge of the truth and that all men WILL NOT be saved. THAT they tell us is the reality and truth of the Scriptures.
Now then, if the reality is that all men WILL NOT BE SAVED, but rather most men will be tortured in a literal lake of fire for all eternity, I ask: Is this "GOOD and ACCEPTABLE in the sight of God our SAVIOUR? Again I ask: Is it "GOOD and ACCEPTABLE" that most of humanity be tortured for all eternity? If it is "GOOD and ACCEPTABLE" that God DOES save all mankind, then it CANNOT also be "GOOD and ACCEPTABLE" that God DOES NOT save all mankind! Am I going too fast for anyone?
I believe that our Christian friends have been once more painted into their little theological corner from which the only way out is repentance!
God says in I Tim. 2:3 that it is "good and acceptable" that all men come to a knowledge of the truth and that all men be saved. This is a fact. This is not debatable. We know for sure the answer to that question. However, theologians tell us that most men (and women and teens) will be tortured in a lake of fire for all eternity, so they will NOT all be saved. Hence my next question: Is it "good and acceptable" in the sight of God our Saviour that most of humanity be tortured in a literal lake of fire for all eternity?
If we say: "Yes," we blaspheme!
If we say: "No," then God is compelled to do what IS "good and acceptable!"
Does anyone have a third alternative to this question? Do we really believe the Scriptures?
I can give you much more proof on this one verse, but more proof is not what we need. What we need is FAITH! FAITH to believe God; FAITH to believe Christ; FAITH to believe the Word!
So that was my little "test verse" to see how many truly believe the Word of God and have a love of the Truth. If you will not and can not believe I Tim. 2:4, then what need have I to show you more verses that you ALSO WILL NOT BELIEVE? If you still believe that I Tim. 2:4 will NEVER be fulfilled, then you have just proven to yourself conclusively that you will NEVER accept ANY VERSE OF SCRIPTURE THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR OWN PRECONCEIVED PERSONAL AND CARNAL DOCTRINES!
There are only two options for those who claim that I Tim. 2:4 will NEVER come to pass: (1) You must prove that this verse is WRONGLY TRANSLATED and has a different meaning from what is stated, or (2) You must confess that YOU REALLY DON’T BELIEVE that the Scriptures are the divinely inspired Words of God. You have now been painted into your own little theological corner, and the only way out is REPENTANCE! There is NO WAY AROUND this verse in I Tim. 2:4 (and a dozen just like it). I have book-ended this verse so that no one can Scripturally contradict it. Anyone who attempts to do so is a LIAR and attempts to make God a LIAR! Now then, with that said:
"…and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev. 21:
!
But know this: all liars enter the lake of fire, but after going through it, they emerge honest as the day is long! I will prove that! For those of you who still have a love of the Truth, let’s continue:
Now for all of those who insist that all of God’s Word must be taken literally, I have another problem verse for you. Jesus Christ said in John 6:63b:
"…the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT and they are life."
Even this simple statement is a metaphor! Condensed, it says this: "[my] words are spirit." That’s not literal; that’s figurative. Here’s the proof: If all the words that Jesus spoke were "literally" "spirit," then no one could ever READ THEM. You could never see them on a printed page because THEY WOULD BE INVISIBLE! SPIRIT IS INVISIBLE! GOD IS INVISIBLE!
Maybe here is the place that I should explain what I believe a metaphor represents. I have heard many and complicated theories as to what the components of a metaphor are and represent. Here are a few:
"The lake of fire, which, by virtue of being its cause, thus, represents the second death.
Not true.
"In the interpretation of a metaphor, the goal is to take note of the essential way in which the SYMBOLIC subject is like the LITERAL predicate."
Not true.
"Indeed, if in the presence of a symbolic, subject-expression, the meaning of the predicate-expression were itself unknowable—which would be the case if the predicate expression were a figure of speech—it would be IMPOSSIBLE to note the likeness between the two." (All CAPS are mine).
Not true.
"Meaningful, metaphorical usage entails a literal, predicate nominative."
Not true.
Not one of the above definitions of a metaphor is true.
Interestingly, the same person who says that the subject of a metaphor must be "symbolic" and the predicate "literal" or there would be no real comparison to determine the meaning of the metaphor, also goes on to say that the people thrown into this lake of fire are LITERALLY burned up and DIE. So they would have to die and be burned by SYMBOLIC FIRE? Give me a break. Symbolic fire does not literally burn up physical matter! The reverse is also true: LITERAL FIRE cannot burn up SYMBOLIC BODIES! No, the subject AND predicate of this metaphor are BOTH symbolic! Nor does one part of a metaphor "represent" the other part as stated above.
The above definitions of a metaphor just won’t work in the real world. Let’s try a couple:
"All flesh is grass" (I Pet. 1:24)
"All flesh represents grass"—In no way does "all flesh" represent "grass"!
"All symbolic flesh is literal grass"—In what way is "symbolic flesh," "literal GRASS? Or, in what way is literal grass like symbolic flesh. This is nonsense.
"All flesh" is itself a symbol for "life" and specifically HUMAN LIFE. "Grass" is ALSO a symbol for a very fragile FORM OF LIFE. BOTH are symbols! And it is not "impossible," but rather very easy to see the likeness between them.
For the benefit of my critics, let me get technical here for just a paragraph and then we will move on. Even a metaphor must be understood in the context that we find it, as no Scripture is its OWN interpretation. In our example "all flesh is grass," it does not say whether it means, "all living flesh is living grass" or "all living flesh is dead grass" or "all dead flesh is living grass" or "all dead flesh is dead grass." Is it important for us to know which it is? Well, yes it is, and God tells us in the verses that follow:
"All flesh is grass, And all its glory is as the flower of grass. Withered is the grass, And the flower falls off … Yet the declaration of the Lord is remaining…" (I Pet. 1:24-25).
This clearly shows a flowering grass in the "process" of dying, contrasted with God’s declarations which "remain" and do not die. In Isaiah 40:6-8, we also have the phrase, "the PEOPLE is grass," so again, we are speaking of living people who will rather quickly become like "dying grass."
Now then, is there a simple way that we can at least represent all metaphors in an intelligent, understandable statement? I think so. I have come up with a statement that seems to represent ALL metaphors correctly and honestly. Here is how it works: Take ANY metaphor and apply this principle to it:
A. "The WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT." Or condensed: [My] Words ARE Spirit.
Next, add the words "like" and "in certain ways," and state the metaphor like this:
B. "The WORDS that I speak unto you, they are [like] SPIRIT [in certain ways].
There it is. Simple. Christ’s words are not literally spirit, but like spirit, but not in all ways, only in certain ways. And so far I have found this principle to work in all metaphors. Christ’s words are not like spirit in that they can be audibly heard by physical ears. They are not like spirit in that we have them on physical paper imprinted with physical ink, etc. But they are like spirit in that they have INVISIBLE POWER. Jesus Himself gives us an explanation of this very sort of thing,
"The wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell whence it comes, and where it goes, SO IS every one that is born of the Spirit" (John 3:
.
Jesus could have used a metaphor here and said something like this: "Those born of the Spirit are wind." But He didn’t. He explained in what "certain ways" they are "like" the wind. And that, you see, is what a metaphor really is. Now let’s try this principle to other metaphors and see if it does not simplify them:
A. "Take, eat: this [bread] is my body" Or condensed: "Bread is Body"
B. "Take eat: this [bread] is [like] my body [in certain ways]"
As physical bread gives nourishment to the physical body, the Bread from heaven is spiritual nourishment to our spiritual life as if we were eating Christ’s spiritual body.
A. "All flesh is grass" (I Pet. 1:24) Or condensed: "Flesh is Grass"
B. "All flesh is [like] grass [in certain ways].
Flesh, specifically that of humans, is very fragile like grass. It is short lived. It is easily killed or destroyed, etc.
A. "The lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev. 20:14). Or condensed: "Lake of fire is Second death"
B. "The lake of fire is [like] the second death [in certain ways]."
But before we can see in what ways the lake of fire is like the second death, we must determine what this lake of fire is and what the second death is.
This metaphor is, admittedly, considerably more complex than most for a number of reasons:
1. The subject contains the addition of an adjective.
2. The Predicate contains the addition of an adjective.
3. The phrase "lake of fire" is used nowhere else in Scripture.
4. The Phrase "second death" is used nowhere else in Scripture.
5. A lake is a body of water not fire.
6. Nowhere do we find a counter-balancing phrase such as "the first death."
7. Satan is thrown into this metaphor—real fire can’t hurt him.
8. Why are the beast and false prophet thrown in to this metaphor before Satan?
9. Although it is called the "second death," NO ONE ACTUALLY DIES!
10. Why would we find "brimstone" or sulfur in this metaphor—brimstone is not something that is used to torture? (
11. Death and hades are thrown into this metaphor—death and hades are not living creatures.
12. Many humans are thrown into this metaphor, but we are not told that their bodies are either "burned" or "killed."
13. Being only "fearful" (Greek: "timid") is cause to be thrown into this lake of fire. Even my detractors might find eternal torture rather excessive punishment for merely being "timid." There are Scriptural answers to all these enigmas.
How then shall we interpret this metaphorical Scripture? Or is this the enigma of all enigmas? The riddle of all riddles? Actually the Scriptures tell us exactly what this "lake of fire/second death" really is. But let me be quick to reassure you that we will never come to an understanding of this metaphor by applying the principles of Christian Theology. This metaphor is NOT physical, material, or literal, but SPIRITUAL in every way! We must look to the spiritual, through spiritual eyes if we are to ever comprehend this enigmatic metaphor.